Bharadwaj says the selection criteria were relaxed once the elected administration took charge of TTFI

Were you surprised that TTFI’s elected executive committee was suspended again?

They work in such an ineffective way. No one there seems motivated to take care of the athletes. It is as if we could not complete the task during our tenure under the Director (the committee of administrators appointed by the Delhi High Court), so I feel I am partly responsible.

What led to such apathy, where disagreements between the President and the Minister for so long affected the entire Indian table tennis ecosystem?

If the core approach isn’t player-centric, no matter what staff you have, there’s nothing you can do. What prevents the National Federation from adopting the new sports law and letting it develop into a new structure? It pains me to see that most of the executives involved in TTFI were table tennis players, yet they did not prioritize paddlers over table games. For example, Manika Batra has a lot to offer Indian table tennis. The federation could have put an end to the disputes of the past, and any well-intentioned official could have sat Maneka down three months before she was selected for the Asian Games and helped her plan for qualification. Such efforts to support every promising player would ensure an environment of mutual trust and a sense of purpose. It is the administration’s duty to work to provide this enabling environment.

In its suspension order, the Ministry of Sports criticized TTF’s selection policy. What was your favorite project during your involvement with the COA?

During the transformational phase (in 2022 and 23), there was a nice approach to the criteria set for selection. It was assumed that for the younger age groups, the priority of domestic performance should replace international performance because you have to be the best in your country to play at international level. It also means that just because a young person comes from a wealthy family, he or she should not deprive the athlete of being part of the international exposure pool. As a result, for under-15s we have proposed an 80:20 formula – 80 percent for domestic performance and 20 for international rankings. For under 17s it was 70:30.

The moment our term ended and an elected regime took over, they changed most of it. Especially the elderly. We have suggested a weighting of 50% for international players, 40% for domestic offers, and 10% subjective. They reversed it to 40% for global rankings and 50% for domestic rankings. Our main idea was that those who are performing consistently on the global circuit should feature in Team India in major tournaments and deserve to be given some freedom to participate in domestic tournaments in an already crowded calendar.

What do you think about the doubles format being treated less well?

Since most major world events have a doubles match – which tends to be the decider in most cases – it has been instituted that every national ranking tournament should have senior doubles events. Even this has been toned down. All of these factors make me question whether we are putting athletes first.

What should be the way forward?

Ultimately, a sport with 30 players ranked in the top 100 (across age groups and seniors) should be in a much better position. But we struggle to keep our house in order. It is something that needs to be done on a priority basis. In Max Costantini, the government has funded a coach with extensive experience and who understands Indian table tennis in depth. I feel like his abilities haven’t been fully exploited by the Federation. Coach development, junior development programmes, doubles academy, etc. are the urgent needs to ensure India’s rightful place in the global table tennis ecosystem. In conclusion, I only hope that the authorities will finalize the appointment of capable and impartial athletes to manage the sport as part of the ad hoc committee to be constituted by the IOA in consultation with the ITTF.