19 January 2026: MAINS CURRENT AFFAIRS

MAINS Current Affairs includes India’s Olympic Ambition: Institutional Reforms & Governance & Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD): Interregnum or Strategic Continuity

Governance

1. India’s Olympic Ambition: Institutional Reforms & Governance

Context

The Prime Minister has reiterated India’s aspiration to host the 2036 Olympic Games, building on the decision to host the Commonwealth Games 2030 and the expansion of domestic sports platforms to broaden athlete participation and exposure.

India’s Olympic Ambition

India’s ambition aligns with sustained investments in sports infrastructure and athlete development, driven by initiatives like Khelo India, Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS), and the Fit India Movement.
The Union Budget 2025–26 allocated ₹3,794.30 crore to the sports sector, including ₹1,000 crore for Khelo India, its highest-ever allocation.
Over 1,000 Khelo India Centres have been established, providing structured coaching, nutrition, medical care, and equipment support to nearly 3,000 athletes.
The emphasis marks India’s preparation for large-scale international participation and long-term sports ecosystem development.

Why Olympic 2036 Raises the Stakes?

International Scrutiny & Compliance

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) stresses ethical governance, athlete safety, gender equity, and financial transparency.

Scale of Public Investment

Hosting the Olympics demands massive public spending on infrastructure, urban development, and security.
Risks include cost overruns, crony contracting, and underutilised “white elephant” stadiums if governance is weak.

Why Institutional & Governance Reforms Are Needed?

Fragmented & Opaque Sports Governance

Most National Sports Federations (NSFs) operate autonomously, often dominated by long-serving officials with minimal athlete representation.
The National Sports Development Code (2011)—enforcing tenure limits, age caps, and transparency—faces frequent resistance, leading to litigation and administrative paralysis.

Politicisation of Sports Bodies

Several federations are led by political figures rather than sports professionals, undermining continuity, expertise, and accountability.

Lack of Structured Athlete Pathways

Many sportspersons lack training for administrative roles due to inadequate mentoring and skilling, despite their valuable experience.
This limits athlete-centric governance.

Digital and Data Deficit

India lags in using sports analytics, injury tracking, and integrated performance systems, with many federations still using fragmented/manual processes.

Regional Imbalances

Significant disparities across states persist.
Medal tallies at Khelo India Youth Games are concentrated in a few resource-rich regions.

Lessons from Commonwealth Games 2010

Despite India winning 101 medals, the Delhi 2010 CWG exposed severe governance lapses, cost overruns, and weak project management.
These failures underscore the need for transparent procurement, stronger oversight, and professional administration ahead of Olympic 2036.

Institutional and Technological Reforms

The Sports Authority of India (SAI) has set up National Centres of Excellence (NCOE) and launched a Digital Athlete Database System for performance analytics and injury monitoring.
The National Centre for Sports Science and Research (NCSSR) is being expanded to strengthen science-backed coaching, sports medicine, and technology integration.
The Abhinav Bindra–led Task Force (2025) highlighted persistent governance gaps, weak accountability, staff shortages, and outdated training systems for sports administrators.
It emphasised the need for a trained administrative cadre and modern management systems.

Way Forward: From Aspiration to Institution

India’s path to 2036 will test whether rising enthusiasm can translate into institutional capacity.

While Khelo India has widened participation and funding has grown, real transformation depends on four pillars:

Professionalised Sports Administration – Skilled, accountable sports managers.
Governance Reform – Merit-based leadership and reduced political control.
Athlete-to-Administrator Pathways – Structured mentorship and transition programmes.
Data-Driven Decision-Making – Integrating analytics and technology across sports governance.

Conclusion

India’s Olympic dream can become a defining milestone, but only if institutional credibility, governance standards, and professional management grow alongside ambition.

Without deep reforms, the 2036 vision risks being built on enthusiasm rather than endurance.

International Relations

2. Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD): Interregnum or Strategic Continuity

Context

In 2025, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) entered a phase often described as a “strategic interregnum”, marked by political transitions, geopolitical pressures, and operational challenges that tested its cohesion, purpose, and long-term relevance.

About the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD)

Evolution of QUAD

Origins trace back to 2004, when India, Japan, Australia, and the US coordinated humanitarian assistance after the Indian Ocean Tsunami, laying the foundation for multilateral cooperation.
In 2007, Japan proposed a formal Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, supported by the US, India, and Australia.
In 2008, Australia withdrew, citing concerns over antagonising China, leading to a temporary dormancy.
Revival (2017 onwards)
Revived during the ASEAN Summit in Manila (2017) amid China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea and the expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
From 2021–2024, QUAD held six leader-level summits, institutionalising cooperation across defence, infrastructure, technology, and supply chains.
QUAD reaffirmed its commitment to a Free, Open, and Inclusive Indo-Pacific.

Role of Member Nations

Each member contributes complementary strengths:

India: Strategic autonomy, maritime security, Indian Ocean leadership; promotes SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region).
United States: Military reach and global leadership under the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) strategy.
Japan: Technology, finance, and advocacy of a rules-based maritime order.
Australia: Regional presence in the South Pacific, energy security, and diversification beyond China.

Significance and Importance of QUAD

Ensuring a Free and Open Indo-Pacific

Acts as a counterweight to coercive and unilateral actions, especially in the South and East China Seas.
Strengthens maritime domain awareness and joint exercises like Malabar, while upholding UNCLOS.
Balancing China’s Assertiveness
Represents strategic balancing through cooperation, offering a transparent and sustainable alternative to the BRI.
Provides smaller Indo-Pacific states with non-coercive infrastructure and connectivity options, countering debt-trap diplomacy.

Rules-Based International Order

Emphasises sovereignty, international law, and global commons.
Complements multilateral platforms like ASEAN, UN, and G20.

Supply Chain Resilience

Launched the Resilient Supply Chain Initiative (RSCI) and later the Quad Resilient Supply Chain Council (2025) to mitigate pandemic and geopolitical disruptions.

Technology and Innovation

Cooperation in 5G, AI, quantum computing, and biotechnology.
In 2025, launched the Quad Innovation Partnership and an AI Ethics Charter.

Health Security

Quad Vaccine Partnership (2021) evolved into the Quad Global Health Security Network (2025), improving pandemic preparedness in South and Southeast Asia.

Climate Action

Tokyo Summit (2025) launched the Quad Climate Infrastructure Fund, promoting green hydrogen and coastal resilience.

Diplomatic Flexibility

Maintains a non-treaty, non-military character, unlike NATO.
Allows engagement without forcing regional partners into rigid alliances.

Concerns and Issues Surrounding QUAD

Strategic Ambiguity

QUAD is neither a formal alliance nor a fully institutionalised organisation, leading to role ambiguity.
Divergent National Interests
- Differing threat perceptions and priorities affect security and defence coordination.
China’s Reaction
- China labels QUAD an “Asian NATO”, accusing it of bloc politics and regional destabilisation.
Institutional Gaps
- Absence of a permanent secretariat (discussions began in 2025 to set one up in Singapore) weakens continuity and accountability.

Overlapping Minilateralism

Proliferation of forums like AUKUS, IPEF, and FOIP dialogues causes coordination fatigue.

ASEAN Concerns

QUAD initiatives operating outside ASEAN frameworks raise concerns over ASEAN centrality, with countries like Indonesia and Malaysia expressing apprehensions.

Economic and Technological Competition

Asymmetry in capabilities: US and Japan dominate semiconductors; India and Australia focus on resources and consumption.
Divergent data governance and privacy norms complicate cooperation.

Funding Constraints

QUAD infrastructure financing (~$60 billion) remains modest compared to China’s $1 trillion BRI.

Other Risks

Fragmentation Risk: Reduced cohesion may limit QUAD to symbolic diplomacy.
Escalation Risk: Militarisation could trigger regional arms races.
Reputational Risk: Failure to deliver tangible benefits may erode legitimacy.
Coordination Risk: Weak integration with ASEAN and EU Indo-Pacific strategies.

Key Initiatives Reinforcing Cooperation

Quad-at-Sea: Ship Observer Mission (June 2025): Enhanced coast guard-level coordination.
Ports of the Future Partnership: First meeting in Mumbai (October 2025) focusing on resilient port infrastructure.
Malabar Naval Exercise (Guam): Strengthened maritime interoperability and QUAD’s naval focus.

Future Relevance

Vision 2030

The Quad Vision 2030 for the Indo-Pacific outlines a long-term roadmap:

Regional digital commons and cyber defence frameworks
Enhanced maritime governance and ocean sustainability
Integration of QUAD+ partners (Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia)
Expanded educational, cultural, and technological exchanges via the Quad University Network

Conclusion

The QUAD’s current interregnum reflects not decline but strategic recalibration.
Its future relevance will depend on converting flexibility into institutional depth, delivering tangible regional outcomes, and maintaining coherence amid geopolitical competition.
If managed effectively, QUAD can remain a cornerstone of Indo-Pacific security and economic architecture in the coming decade.