The 53rd FIG Artistic Gymnastics World Championships in Jakarta (October 19–25, 2025) turned into a sobering assessment of India’s position in world gymnastics.
For a nine-member contingent that arrived with quiet optimism, the outcome no athlete qualifying for an apparatus or all-around final was a blunt reminder of the widening gap between aspiration and international standards. Against the brilliance of Japan’s Daiki Hashimoto and China’s Zou Jingyuan, India’s routines fell short in both difficulty and execution, confirming that the nation remains far from global contention.
The Hard Numbers: A 2-Point Gap That Defines the Divide
In elite gymnastics, a margin of two points can represent an entire generation of development and for India, that gap defined the campaign. Across men’s and women’s events, the average difference between India’s top routines and the minimum qualifying score was more than two points. In men’s events, the best Indian floor exercise score came from Tapan Mohanty (11.900), nearly two points below the 13.866 required to make the final. On parallel bars, Tapeswaranath Das scored 11.800 against a qualification benchmark of 14.200.
The story was harsher in the women’s competition. On Uneven Bars, Anoushka Patil (8.800) and Bidisha Gayen (8.400) finished near the bottom of the 119-strong field, more than five points adrift of the cutoff. For context, the 14.000 qualifying score in this event is a routine standard achieved consistently by gymnasts from China, the United States, and Europe making India’s deficit not a matter of bad luck, but systemic under-preparation.
A Costly Gamble: Pranati Nayak’s Injury and a Risk Gone Wrong
India’s most experienced gymnast, Pranati Nayak, carried the weight of expectation into Jakarta. A vault specialist and Olympian, Nayak attempted a high-difficulty Tsukahara 720 Twist, aiming to make a mark in qualification. But competing with a lingering hip niggle, she landed deep, twisting her ankle and registering a Did Not Finish (DNF).
Her injury was emblematic of a deeper issue India’s risk management at major events. The decision to pursue maximum difficulty despite compromised preparation reflected misplaced priorities. Yet, in elite sport, success often lies in balancing ambition with physical readiness. Nayak’s withdrawal not only ended India’s best final chance but also highlighted the urgent need for structured injury clearance protocols and independent medical oversight before major competitions.
The Men’s Program: Difficulty Deficit and a Culture of Playing Safe
In the men’s events, the performances revealed a clear structural weakness: low difficulty routines. Across the six apparatuses, Indian gymnasts averaged between 11.000 and 12.000 points, primarily due to low D-scores the component that measures routine complexity. For instance, Harikrishnan J.S. scored 12.000 on Pommel Horse, almost 2.3 points below the qualifying standard of 14.300.
Gymnastics rewards risk and precision, but Indian coaching has historically leaned toward conservative routines that prioritize clean landings over complex elements. This strategy caps the potential ceiling no matter how well executed, an easy routine cannot reach the 14.000 benchmark. As the new men’s head coach Rakesh Patra a five-time World Championship participant takes over, his biggest challenge will be to instill a “difficulty-first” mindset. Without it, India’s men’s team will continue to hover below global competitiveness.
While men struggled with routine complexity, India’s women faced a technical breakdown. The Uneven Bars event was particularly alarming: Indian gymnasts ranked in the bottom 5% of the field. Scores like 8.800 are virtually unattainable without multiple falls and missed requirements. This suggests deficiencies in strength, rhythm, and dynamic connection all critical for performing high-amplitude release moves.
Even on other apparatuses, deficits persisted: Balance Beam (best score 10.100) and Floor (10.800) placed Indian athletes in the bottom quartile. These results reflect not just performance errors but infrastructural and coaching limitations. Exposure to international-standard equipment remains limited, and the national centers still lack specialized apparatus coaches, particularly for Uneven Bars and Beam two events where technique, not power, determines success.
Perhaps the most revealing insight from Jakarta lies not in the athletes’ routines but in the system that prepares them. Indian gymnastics continues to suffer from domestic scoring inflation a tendency for judges at national events to award scores significantly higher than those given under FIG international standards. This creates a false sense of readiness: an athlete scoring 13.000 at a national trial might score 10.800 internationally, misleading coaches and administrators into believing progress is being made. To correct this, India must invite neutral FIG-certified judges for national trials and enforce objective scoring aligned with global benchmarks.
Without accurate feedback, technical progress is impossible, and the gap between domestic performance and international reality will only widen.
The Jakarta World Championships underscored that Indian gymnastics doesn’t lack talent—it lacks competitive architecture. To bridge the gap before the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics, three strategic reforms are essential:
- Difficulty Acceleration Program: Raise the D-scores across key apparatuses Uneven Bars (target 5.5–6.0), Pommel Horse (5.5–6.0), and High Bar (5.5–6.0). These are the technical thresholds needed for global contention.
- Specialization Strategy: Instead of spreading resources thin across multiple disciplines, India should focus on apparatus specialization producing one or two athletes capable of hitting 13.500+ consistently, as seen in the targeted success of stars like Carlos Yulo in men’s floor and vault.
- Governance and Coaching Reform: Recruit at least two foreign technical consultants one each for MAG (Pommel Horse, High Bar) and WAG (Uneven Bars, Beam) to work full-time within national centers. Implement mandatory medical and sports science protocols to prevent preventable injuries like Nayak’s.
Jakarta 2025 wasn’t a failure it was a diagnosis. It confirmed what insiders long suspected: Indian gymnastics is still built on outdated technical models and insular assessment systems. The challenge ahead is not just about adding medals, but about rebuilding credibility in judging, coaching, and competitive mindset. The Indian contingent may have left Jakarta without a single finalist, but if the lessons from this campaign are internalized, it could mark the beginning of genuine transformation.
Success in gymnastics, like the routines themselves, is built on repetition, precision, and balance and India must now find all three.
