No end in sight to volleyball star Tom Joseph's misery as Arjuna award remains elusive

What hurts Joseph more is the fact that cricketers are honoured ahead of ‘other’ team events; in many cases volleyball players are vying for a medal on the basis of their play against over 100 participating nations as opposed to cricket, which is played by not more than 11 teams.

“See, cricketers don’t even play for India. They play for BCCI. Will they continue to dedicate their lives (to the sport) if BCCI stopped paying them for every match they play?” he questions, almost crying out to the government to recognize sportsmen from other team games.

What is the criterion for selecting an Arjuna awardee? Is there any preference given to popular sports? Apparently there is, if one were to go by the following quote by Millet:

“The popularity of the sports is taken into consideration. For example, badminton has received tremendous following in the past four-five years. So in that case, a big performance by a shuttler in an important international event would weigh more than someone who has won a world championship medal in a sport like judo or skating.”

But is any special treatment given to cricket? A cricketer is chosen for the year every single year. Millet, however, vehemently denies any such bias.

“Cricket isn’t given any additional importance by the committee. In fact, most of the panel members are from a variety of sports which do not include cricket, hence there is no question of lobbying for cricketers. Only their World Cup performance is considered and we don’t pay attention to their tri-series, Test series, etc.”

Still, there does seem to be a bias when it comes to the ‘traditional’ sports of the country. “Traditional sports in our country would be given utmost importance. Like hockey, boxing, athletics, football, wrestling, badminton”, admits Millet.

Sadly, not only does volleyball fail to qualify as a ‘traditional’ sport, but it is also suffering from a trophy drought in recent years. The high point for India in the game came way back in 1986, when the country won a medal in the Seoul Asian Games. Over the past decade or so, there hasn’t been any remarkable feat in the sport, apart from a few good outings at the Asian-level events. That is perhaps the reason the national award selection committee repeatedly chooses other sportsmen over volleyball players.

The last time a player from volleyball was awarded the Arjuna was in 2011, when Sanjay Kumar Phogat was felicitated. In 2010, K.J. Kapil Dev was given the award.

“As far as our team is considered, we have a very good side; the only thing lacking is international exposure. We don’t play enough international tournaments. Like in this year, so far we have played only two events outside the country. So where is the question of India making a mark in international level?” Joseph bemoans.

“We are extremely good in Indian conditions and here we play really well but are not able to translate that to wins when we go abroad, and that is mainly because of lack of experience.”

That, according to Millet, is another cause for being disregarded. “The most important aspect for the panel is to see if the person has represented the country at the world level and how consistent he or she has been over the past two, three years,” she stresses.

But doesn’t the fact that Joseph has been the ‘face’ of volleyball for over a decade count for anything? Doesn’t the fact that he is so popular and well-respected in the global volleyball fraternity have any value? Not much, according to Millet.

“That does not matter. I may have been the queen of Indian swimming and remained a national champion for two decades, (but) I would not have been considered for the Arjuna award if not for my qualifying for the Sydney Olympics. In the past five years, the panel has become stringent in picking the awardees, and they do not consider the Asian Championships, age-group competitions, or even the South Asian Federation (SAF) Games.”

Then there is the matter of ‘lobbying’ for the award, and the question of whether influential athletes get preference over less well-connected ones. The recent controversy over the final list of awardees seemed like a damning indictment over the transparency, or otherwise, of the whole process. But Millet rubbishes any such fears:

“The process of selecting a national awardee is very transparent and all the panel members are very outspoken and are blunt in giving their opinion on each and every athlete who is shortlisted. There is profuse discussion over each and every athlete and we argue whether he/she is deserving. Even the ministry does not influence us in changing our mind. The head of the panel, however, always has the final say and gives the final nod to the list. There can’t be last minute additions to or subtractions from the list; the majority (of panel members) have to be in favour of giving the award to a particular athlete.”

While the extent of the role that ‘influence’ plays in selection of the awardees is debatable, what can’t be denied is that the lesser-known sports invariably get the short end of the stick when it comes to attracting the attention of the jury members. It is evident that it is very easy for an eligible player to miss out on the award simply because his or her team has no discernible international presence. But whether the respective federations are giving the athletes enough support to take part in international events is conveniently ignored.

Shouldn’t there be a clear distinction between selecting the awardees from individual sports and team sports? Should an individual’s brilliance in a team sport be given so little importance? Doesn’t the Arjuna awards panel realize that to this day, 16 years since his debut, Tom Joseph remains one of the few bright spots in Indian volleyball? Isn’t it amply clear that Joseph is thoroughly deserving of the national award?

There are too many questions here and not enough answers.