The wrestling controversy, which was showing signs of a resolution, has gone further south yet again with two important developments in the last couple of days. First, it is now an open war between the protesting wrestlers and Yogeshwar Dutt, a former Olympic medallist. And second, the Guwahati High Court has now issued a stay order on the forthcoming Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) elections, which had been scheduled for July 11.
While the election issue is now sub judice, and we need to wait and see what the courts decide on the matter, on the Yogeshwar-v-Wrestlers issue, the protesters have given enough proof to show that Yogeshwar wasn’t portraying the correct picture. With the ad-hoc panel, which now has two coaches added to it, seeking a trial exemption for the protesting wrestlers, Yogeshwar went on record to suggest that the real motive behind the protest was to not attend the trials. It wasn’t about justice, argued Yogeshwar, who said that the entire protest was motivated by the selfish needs of the protesters.
Now that the wrestlers have come forward and given proof that contradicts Yogeshwar. They have put out a letter written to the Sports Minister, where they had sought a 40-45 day window to get ready for the trials. They had requested the ministry to take their trials in the first week of August, which would have given them the requisite time to regain full fitness, having been out of touch for five to six months.
The moot point here is simple. Did the wrestlers seek exemption from the trials, and suggest that they would only fight one bout, or are they agreeable to take part in a full trial to make the cut for the national team? If they did not seek exemption, why is it that the ad-hoc panel has done so on their behalf? What is the logic behind suggesting that the six wrestlers in question – Sakshi Malik, Bajrang Punia and Vinesh Phogat being the three main faces – just need to win one bout against the trial winner to be a part of the Indian contingent for key competitions like the World Championships or the Asian Games?
Also Read: Guwahati High Court stays WFI elections
Sakshi, who had come on social media to counter Yogeshwar’s claims, spoke to RevSportz in detail on the matter. “We have never asked to be given an exemption,” she said. “All we have asked for is a 40-45 day period to be fully ready for the trials. We know that if we asked for a one-bout trial, it would be unfair on the other wrestlers and we will never ever do so. You can check our letter, which is now in the public domain.”
When asked if they are ready for a full trial if asked by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), Sakshi was emphatic. “We are ready for any kind of trial in the first week of August,” she said. “All we need is a little time to get back in shape. As wrestlers, our bodies will take some time to get back to competition mode now that we have been out of action for five to six months. Whether it is a full trial or a single bout is not something we have a say in. And nor have we said a word on the matter. By saying this, it is an attempt to malign us and destroy our unity. If other wrestlers hear this, it is but natural that they will feel let down. Yogeshwar knows we have the support of the fraternity, and this is a vile attempt to break our unity.”
Bajrang too has suggested that he would quit the sport if Yogeshwar could demonstrate that he had sought an exemption. And finally Vinesh, who will be facing a strong challenge from the young Antim Phangal, too isn’t shy of participating in a full-blown trial.
For the IOA, the best thing would be to take back the order of exemption and make it a level playing field. Grant the protesting wrestlers the time they need to get ready, and then get them to participate in a proper trial without any favours to anyone. It is also to be seen if the Olympic Council of Asia agrees to the IOA’s request seeking an extension of the date to send in India’s entries for the Asian Games and World Championships.
If the request is rejected, the IOA would be in a spot. While it has to submit the final list of names by July 15, the protesting wrestlers wouldn’t be ready by then. While the IOA can indeed change names at a later date, it would have to organise a second trial for these weight categories if it has to accommodate the six wrestlers who would only be ready by August 10.
Clearly, the water has been muddied again, and it needs to be seen how the powers that be get their heads round this fresh set of problems.