Why India Won 85 Medals at the 2026 Asian Games After 106 at Hangzhou
India finished fourth at the 2026 Asian Games in Aichi-Nagoya with 85 medals — 21 gold, 27 silver and 37 bronze. At first glance, the result appears to represent a significant decline from the country’s record performance at Hangzhou in 2023, where India won 106 medals, including 28 golds, 38 silvers and 40 bronzes. Yet the raw numbers do not tell the entire story.
India’s 85-medal haul remains the country’s second-best performance in Asian Games history. More importantly, the reduction from 106 to 85 was concentrated in a relatively small number of disciplines, particularly shooting, athletics and rowing. At the same time, India strengthened its position in boxing, wrestling and several team sports, while archery remained exceptionally strong.
The question, therefore, is not simply why India won fewer medals. The more interesting question is: what changed between Hangzhou and Aichi-Nagoya?
The headline decline: 106 to 85
At Hangzhou, India produced a historic 106-medal performance. It was the first time the country had crossed 100 medals at the Asian Games and included a record 28 gold medals.
In Aichi-Nagoya, India finished with 85 medals and remained fourth in the continental standings. The gold count fell from 28 to 21, silver from 38 to 27, while bronze medals declined only slightly from 40 to 37.
That distinction is important. India’s biggest problem was not an inability to reach the podium. It was converting podium finishes into gold and silver medals at the same rate as Hangzhou.
Shooting was the biggest source of the decline
Shooting was India’s most important medal-producing sport at Hangzhou, delivering 22 medals: seven gold, nine silver and six bronze.
In 2026, shooting produced 15 medals. India’s shooters still had notable successes, including Neeru Dhanda’s historic individual trap gold and the mixed trap gold won with Kynan Chenai. But the overall contribution was considerably smaller than at Hangzhou.
The fall from seven shooting golds to three is particularly significant because gold medals determine the position on the Asian Games table.
This is therefore not a story of Indian shooting collapsing. India continued to win medals and even produced historic firsts. Rather, the extraordinary depth demonstrated at Hangzhou was not repeated.
Athletics tells an even more interesting story
Athletics was India’s largest medal-producing discipline at Hangzhou, with 29 medals — six gold, 14 silver and nine bronze.
In Aichi-Nagoya, India still won 24 athletics medals. That is an excellent number by historical standards. But the composition changed dramatically: India won only one athletics gold, alongside nine silver and 14 bronze medals.
This explains why the overall medal decline should not be interpreted as a collapse of Indian athletics.
Several performances were exceptional. Gulveer Singh emerged as one of India’s standout athletes, while Sawan Barwal ended India’s 44-year wait for a men’s marathon medal at the Asian Games. India also won medals in high jump, pole vault, relays, javelin, shot put and distance running.
The problem was gold-medal conversion.
India continued to produce athletes capable of reaching the podium, but many of those podium finishes were silver or bronze rather than gold. That is an important distinction when comparing the two Games.
Rowing quietly explains another large part of the gap
Rowing is perhaps the least discussed reason for India’s lower total.
India won five rowing medals at Hangzhou, but only one in Aichi-Nagoya.
That means three sports — athletics, shooting and rowing — account for a very large portion of the 21-medal difference between the two editions.
This illustrates why simply saying that “India performed worse” would be misleading. The country’s overall medal performance was heavily influenced by fluctuations in a handful of multi-event disciplines.
Some Hangzhou medals were simply not available
The sports programme also changed.
Aichi-Nagoya featured 43 sports and 469 medal events, compared with 40 sports at Hangzhou. However, adding sports does not necessarily benefit India.
The 2026 programme introduced or expanded sports such as mixed martial arts, padel, surfing, virtual taekwondo and teqball. At the same time, chess and bridge were removed, among other programme changes.
That mattered to India.
At Hangzhou, India won two silver medals in chess and one silver in bridge. Those three medals were therefore not simply “lost” because Indian athletes underperformed; the opportunities themselves were absent from the 2026 programme.
This is an important factor when making a direct 106-versus-85 comparison.
Tennis, badminton and equestrian also failed to reproduce Hangzhou
India’s Hangzhou performance included medals in tennis, equestrian and badminton that were not fully replicated in 2026.
Tennis had produced two medals at Hangzhou and none in Aichi-Nagoya. Equestrian had also contributed two medals in Hangzhou but did not provide the same return in 2026.
Badminton, meanwhile, fell from three medals to one.
These relatively small losses become important when added together. The 21-medal difference was therefore not caused by one disaster. It was the cumulative effect of several sports producing fewer medals than they did three years earlier.
But India’s emerging strengths are perhaps more important
There is another side to the story.
India actually improved in several disciplines.
Boxing went from four medals at Hangzhou to six in Aichi-Nagoya. More importantly, India went from zero boxing golds to three.
Lovlina Borgohain, Parveen Hooda and Ankush Panghal all won gold, giving Indian boxing one of its strongest Asian Games campaigns. Lovlina also became only the second Indian woman to win an Asian Games boxing gold after Mary Kom.
Wrestling provides another encouraging example. India won six medals at both Games, but the colour improved significantly. After winning no wrestling gold at Hangzhou, India captured two golds in 2026 through Aman Sehrawat and Sujeet Kalkal.
That is a meaningful improvement even though the total medal number remained unchanged.
Archery has become one of India’s most reliable medal engines
Archery is perhaps the clearest example of stability.
India won nine archery medals at Hangzhou and nine again in Aichi-Nagoya.
But the 2026 performance carried historic significance. India’s women’s recurve team won gold for the first time, while Kumkum Anil Mohod became the first Indian woman to win an individual recurve gold at the Asian Games.
That suggests India is no longer dependent exclusively on compound archery. Its recurve programme is becoming increasingly competitive as well.
Team sports provided an extraordinary return
India’s team sports were another major positive.
Both men’s and women’s cricket teams won gold. Both men’s and women’s kabaddi teams won gold. And both men’s and women’s hockey teams won gold.
The women’s hockey triumph was particularly significant because India ended a 44-year wait for the Asian Games women’s hockey title. The men’s team successfully defended its title and also secured qualification for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
These results show that India’s team-sport strength is broadening rather than contracting.
New sports are beginning to contribute
India also collected medals from disciplines that had not previously been major contributors.
Mirabai Chanu won India’s first Asian Games weightlifting medal since Karnam Malleswari’s silver in 1998. India also won its first Asian Games MMA medal and a medal in soft tennis.
Pranavi Urs’ golf gold was another historic achievement: it was India’s first Asian Games individual women’s golf gold.
These results may not compensate immediately for a seven-medal decline in shooting, but they demonstrate a broader competitive base.
The bigger issue: India still has a finishing problem
The most revealing feature of Aichi-Nagoya may therefore be India’s gold-medal conversion.
India produced 85 medals, but only 21 were gold. Athletics alone produced 24 medals but only one gold. Shooting produced 15 but three golds.
This suggests that India has become increasingly capable of producing athletes who reach the podium, but it still struggles to consistently turn elite performances into victories against the best Asian competition.
That is particularly important because China, Japan and South Korea operate at a much greater scale in many Olympic disciplines.
The next stage of Indian sporting development therefore cannot simply be about increasing participation. It must be about developing athletes who can repeatedly win finals, not merely qualify for them.
What does this mean for 2030?
The encouraging conclusion is that India does not need to rebuild its entire sporting system.
It needs to retain the strengths of Aichi-Nagoya while restoring the extraordinary depth seen at Hangzhou.
If shooting returns from 15 medals toward 20-plus, athletics converts more silvers and bronzes into golds, and rowing and badminton recover, India could regain the missing 15–20 medals.
At the same time, boxing, wrestling, archery, women’s hockey, cricket, kabaddi, golf and emerging sports provide additional sources of medals.
That combination could potentially take India beyond its Hangzhou record.
Conclusion
India’s 85 medals at the 2026 Asian Games should not be viewed simply as a 21-medal decline from Hangzhou.
Hangzhou was an extraordinary outlier, driven particularly by shooting and athletics. Aichi-Nagoya exposed weaknesses in those two disciplines, while programme changes removed some medal opportunities altogether.
Yet beneath the lower headline number, there are several encouraging developments: stronger boxing, better wrestling gold conversion, continued archery dominance, historic women’s hockey success, two cricket golds, two kabaddi golds and breakthroughs in golf, weightlifting and MMA.
The real verdict is therefore mixed but optimistic.
India has not gone backwards as much as the 106-to-85 comparison suggests. It has moved from an exceptional medal peak toward a broader sporting base.
The challenge for the next Asian Games is clear: turn that broader base into more gold medals.
If India can combine its new strengths with a return to Hangzhou-level performance in shooting and athletics, the next target should not merely be 100 medals.
India could realistically begin thinking about 110-plus.
You May Also Like :
Comments are closed.