From Affordable to Unaffordable: Has Ramrai Indoor Stadium Drifted Away from the Spirit of Khelo India?

A growing wave of criticism has engulfed the recent franchise-based operation of the Government-owned Ramrai Indoor Stadium in Barpeta, with players, parents and sports enthusiasts alleging that a public sports facility built with taxpayers’ money is gradually becoming unaffordable for the very people it was meant to serve.

The controversy began after badminton coaching and court management at the stadium were handed over to Olympian Dipankar Bhattacharjee’s academy under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Board of Sports of Assam. Since the new arrangement came into effect on July 1, concerns over affordability, accessibility and transparency have continued to intensify.

Until June this year, the stadium was widely regarded as one of the most affordable badminton centres in the region. Players undergoing coaching paid only ₹700 per month, while senior players who used the courts only for practice without coaching paid ₹1,000 per month. The affordable fee structure enabled students from middle-class and economically weaker families to pursue badminton without placing an excessive financial burden on their parents.

The scenario has changed dramatically following the franchise arrangement. Coaching fees now range from ₹1,500 to ₹12,000 per month, depending on the category of training. The academy has also introduced Corporate Booking Charges, including ₹100 per person per hour for synthetic courts, ₹150 per person per hour for wooden courts, besides monthly corporate packages of ₹3,000 and ₹4,500 respectively.

The revised pricing has triggered sharp criticism across Barpeta. Parents argue that the district is predominantly rural and economically modest, making such charges unrealistic for ordinary families. Many fear that talented children may be compelled to abandon the sport simply because their parents cannot afford the new fees.

Critics have questioned whether the commercial model is appropriate for a government-developed sports facility whose primary objective was to promote grassroots participation. They argue that public infrastructure should remain accessible to all, particularly in districts where sporting opportunities are already limited.

The issue has also revived the debate over the objectives of the Government of India’s Khelo India programme, which seeks to promote sports at the grassroots level through accessible infrastructure, quality coaching and equal opportunities for talented youth. Sports lovers contend that if financial barriers prevent children from entering government sports facilities, the very purpose of such public investment stands weakened.

Adding to the criticism are concerns raised by several parents and players regarding the coaching ecosystem. They allege that despite the premium fee structure, the academy does not have an NIS-certified coach at the centre. They argue that when coaching charges are comparable to those of leading private academies, athletes naturally expect coaching standards of the highest professional level.

Another question repeatedly raised by local residents is whether adequate public consultation was undertaken before implementing such a significant change. Many believe that district-level sports associations, former players, coaches and parents should have been consulted before introducing a new operational model for a government-owned stadium.

The silence of the authorities has further fuelled public dissatisfaction. When contacted regarding the concerns over the fee structure, affordability, and other issues raised by players and parents, District Sports Officer, Barpeta, had no response. No official clarification has yet been issued on the rationale behind the steep revision of fees or on the concerns regarding coaching standards.

It is important to note that the criticism is not directed at Olympian Dipankar Bhattacharjee personally, whose contribution to Indian badminton is widely acknowledged and respected. Rather, the debate centres on whether a public sports facility created with government funds should operate in a manner that many local residents perceive as financially exclusionary.

As criticism continues to grow, many sports enthusiasts believe that the issue extends beyond badminton. They argue that the future of grassroots sports in Assam depends not only on building modern stadiums but also on ensuring that those facilities remain affordable and accessible to ordinary citizens.

For many in Barpeta, the question is no longer about badminton alone. It is about whether public sports infrastructure should remain a public asset dedicated to nurturing talent, or gradually evolve into facilities that only those with greater financial means can regularly access.