Just have a look at this opinion poll on cricket over hockey conducted by one of the leading papers in India. http://o3.indiatimes.com/mytimes/archive/2008/02/21/4894330.aspx
I’m not sure if this question should be asked in the first place. Still, something to ponder about. From the reactions of many, it is evident that hockey is here to stay and remain as the national sport.
What does it mean to be a national sport? I tried in vain searching for a universal definition for “National sport.” I guess it could be phrased as “A sport of special historical significance, given importance by the national government.”
As such, I do not see any historically significant event, apart from its glorious wins in the mid 2oth century where India dominated the sport with its 8 consecutive wins at Olympics1. Well, it is significant enough. Please do update me if you are more aware of how Hockey came to be the national sport of India.
A definition I found from Wikipedia is as follows: “a national sport is a sport or game that is considered to be a popularly intrinsic part of the culture or is the most popular sport of a country or nation.”
From what I have read, hockey2, just like cricket3, was brought to India by the British. Indians grasped the game, and in time, mastered it. The situation is similar with cricket. Gauging from the craze for cricket amongst the lot in India, why was this sport not considered to be made the national sport?
I am runing out of time at the moment. More to come, elaborating and viewing different angles of the same. Have a good read.
1. http://www.tourindia.com/insignia/sport.htm
2. http://sports.indiapress.org/hockey.php
Wahi's Weblog 