Days before the start of the London Games, the private firmthat was contracted to provide security guards conceded that it did not havethe required staff. In the weeks that preceded the Commonwealth Games in 2010,which took place in Delhi, Indian sports administrators were accused of takingkickbacks for awarding contracts, stadiums were still not ready, a hastilybuilt footbridge to a venue collapsed, part of the roof of the wrestlingstadium fell, and the chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Gamesfederation, Mike Hooper, said the athletes’ village was so filthy that it wasnot fit for humans.
The British and the Indians are too proud to let foreignerswhip them, but if they are given a whip, they do a good job on themselves.Still, there is a crucial difference in the ways the two countries have reactedto their national embarrassments. Despite the outrage over its own failings,Britain appeared to possess an understated confidence in itself, which is moreprofound than the mere swagger of national pride.
The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, reacted to bus driversgetting lost with the casual quip, “If they took four hours, then they willhave seen far more of the city than they might otherwise have done.” When theDelhi Commonwealth Games were falling apart, Indian politicians, the public andthe news media interpreted it as a calamitous shame that appeared to point to afailure of the Indian civilization.
The Commonwealth Games did expose what was wrong with India:the perpetual quest “to show the world” without altering the ground realities,the incurable corruption. Without the steadying influence of self-assuredness, whichis normally a gift of economic history and seasoned affluence, Indians sail onthe tumultuous winds of collective shame on some days and national pride onothers.
At the heart of Indian pride is the magnification of thesame sense of inadequacy that makes Indians easily ashamed of their nation. Aswith individuals, the exaggerated sense of pride is very often a form ofself-flagellation.
