India got 21 golds at Aichi-Nagoya 2026 but fewer medals overall than at Hangzhou. Critically evaluate how effective schemes such as Khelo India and TOPS have been in building a sporting ecosystem.

India's medal tally fell from 107 (28 Gold) at Hangzhou [2] to 85 (21 Gold) at Aichi-Nagoya 2026 [1]. The drop hides two things. Khelo India and TOPS have produced real gains, but the institutions meant to deliver them have weak points.

Strengths: Where the Schemes Have Worked

• Grassroots-to-podium pipeline: Khelo India athletes won 42 of India's medals at Hangzhou [4]. The PM has called TOPS a "game changer" for elite results [4].
• Wider talent base: India sent 300+ debutants in a 501-athlete contingent [1].
• Steady gold share: golds were about 25% of medals (21/85), against about 26% (28/107) at Hangzhou [1][2]. India reached the podium less often but was no worse at turning podiums into golds.
• Asian-sport edge: India won medals in kabaddi, kurash, sepak takraw and wushu [1].

Weaknesses: Where the Ecosystem Falls Short

• Smaller contingent: India planned to send 700+ athletes [3] but sent 501 [1]. That meant fewer medal chances, and no official explanation was given.
• Underspending: Khelo India spent only ₹324 crore of ₹520 crore in 2018-19. The Standing Committee told the Department to use its allocated funds first [5].
• Weak institutions: about 45% of SAI posts are vacant and are filled with contract staff. Some of the 24 NCOEs are not operational [6].
• Few gold-winning sports: archery, shooting and boxing gave 11 of 21 golds. Athletics won 24 medals but only 1 gold [1].
• Underfunded strengths: academies for indigenous games and martial arts lack regular funding [6], though these are among India's Asiad medal sports.
• No measurable targets: the goal was to "beat Hangzhou" [3], but no targets were published for each discipline.

Way Forward

• Make SAI a statutory body with its own dedicated staff, as the Standing Committee recommended [6].
• The current Khelo India cycle ran until March 2026 [6]. Its renewal should link funding to spending and to state-wise performance [6].
• Use the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, with its RTI coverage, tenure limits and grievance redressal, to make federations answerable [7].

The schemes have been partly effective. They have widened India's talent pipeline and kept podium finishes turning into golds at the same rate. However, vacant posts, unspent funds and unaccountable federations limit what they achieve. Discipline-wise targets and reviews based on gold conversion, set under the National Sports Policy 2025 [8], can help make India a consistent sporting power.