A political storm has emerged in Haryana’s sporting and governance discourse after Congress Member of Parliament Deepender Singh Hooda sharply criticised the state government for not submitting a proposal to host or co-host any events related to the 2036 Olympic Games, which India is currently considering as a potential host nation. In a forceful critique during the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament in New Delhi, Hooda described the apparent inaction as symptomatic of an “anti-sports mindset” in the state’s ruling dispensation, intensifying political contestation over sports policy, infrastructure development, and regional equity.
Responding to a question in the Lok Sabha, Union Sports Minister Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya confirmed that Haryana had not forwarded any proposal to the central government for consideration in the 2036 Olympics bid process. At present, only the government of Gujarat has officially expressed its intention to host the multi-sport international spectacle, which remains in the “continuous dialogue” stage with the International Olympic Committee. The absence of Haryana in this dialogue raised sharp questions from Hooda, who represents Rohtak in Parliament and is a veteran political leader in the state.
Hooda, known for his vocal advocacy on sports and youth issues, argued that Haryana’s exclusion from the strategic bidding process was a glaring oversight. He pointed out that the state — often referred to as India’s “medal factory” — contributes disproportionately to the country’s sporting success on the international stage, particularly in events such as the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games and recent Olympics. Despite this history of athletic excellence, the MP alleged that the state government’s failure to engage with the 2036 Olympic bid process exposed a lack of vision and priority for sports development.
In his parliamentary remarks, Hooda referenced previous major international sporting events hosted by India, including the 1982 Asian Games and the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi, noting the significant infrastructure legacy and development gains such events delivered not just for the host city but also its neighbouring regions. He suggested that strategic engagement in global events yields long-term dividends beyond the competition itself, including improved transport, stadiums, training facilities and opportunities for local youth.
Hooda warned that by ceding a potential role in the Olympics bid to Gujarat, Haryana may lose out on corresponding federal investments, talent development opportunities, and global exposure that could benefit emerging athletes. “It is surprising that Haryana, which gives India medals, failed to get its due,” he said. “But Gujarat is receiving attention and investment. This reflects not only a missed opportunity but a deeper problem in how sports policy is prioritised in our state.”
The criticism comes amid a broader political debate in Haryana over the state’s handling of sports infrastructure and youth development. In recent years, opposition leaders — particularly from the Congress — have raised concerns about the condition of training facilities, allocation of Khelo India funds, and the perceived downgrading of welfare schemes that previously supported athletes. These debates have periodically surfaced in legislative assemblies and public platforms, framing sports development as both an economic and cultural issue.
Responding to Hooda’s criticism, government officials in Haryana said that while the state remains proud of its sporting heritage, strategic discussions on international hosting bids are complex, requiring technical feasibility studies, land and resource assessments, and coordination with national bodies such as the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). They noted that planning for major events such as the 2036 Olympics spans several years and preliminary preparations are ongoing at multiple levels. The officials also emphasised that Haryana has launched “Mission Olympics 2036,” a state-level programme aimed at preparing athletes and strengthening training pathways, although this initiative is focused on performance goals rather than bid hosting.
Political analysts say that the issue highlights the increasing intersection between sports policy and electoral politics. With public investment and regional pride tied closely to global sporting events, leaders across parties are keen to leverage such opportunities to solidify support among youth, athletes’ families, and communities passionate about sports. They suggest that while hosting large events can catalyse infrastructure upgrades and visibility, sustainable athletic excellence also depends on consistent funding, grassroots programmes, and strategic long-term planning.
As the debate continues, stakeholders from sporting federations, athlete associations and civil society are watching closely. Many contend that irrespective of where the Olympics will be held, Haryana’s government must demonstrate proactive leadership in supporting athletes and improving facilities if it hopes to translate criticism into constructive outcomes. The ongoing discussions are likely to shape not only political narratives in Haryana but also broader conversations about the role of sport in state development and national identity.
