India's dream of playing in the FIFA World Cup remains a work in progress. Targets have been set multiple times, but little progress has been made in that direction. India's position has slipped further down to 127th on the FIFA ranking. But a fresh debate has ignited across Indian footballing circles following reports that the Sports Ministry is considering lifting its longstanding restriction on OCI footballers and the possible inclusion of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) in the national team. The Indian government's consideration to reverse its policy stems from the lack of progress in Indian football.

Players with OCI or PIO cards are currently ineligible to represent India due to a 2008 order from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS), which directed all National Sports Federations (NSFs) to allow only sportspersons holding a valid Indian passport to represent the country in international events.

But ever since a senior ministry official confirmed that the move is under consideration, it has been instantly celebrated in certain quarters, as many saw a ray of hope in the idea—a quick fix, perhaps even a long-awaited recognition of global talent with desi hearts. Yet, deeper questions continue to echo across India's football fraternity: Are we truly building a team or merely bandaging a broken system to hide a long, unhealed wound?

"Yes, it is a solution - but a very short-term solution," Ranjit Bajaj, never one to mince his words, told Sports Now. He is the man who has built India's largest private grassroots football academy in Mohali. "But will allowing overseas Indians to play for India actually help our ecosystem, or are you just hiring foreign mercenaries to play for you?" Bajaj asked.

"Ecosystem" has long been the buzzword in Indian football, yet it is the element that remains missing. Allowing overseas Indians to play might uplift the scenario briefly, but does it truly heal the rot within?

"The problem is not the overseas players. The problem lies in our own system. So the idea is like a band-aid," Bajaj observed. "The spine of any football team - strikers, centre backs, and midfielders - has been increasingly handed over to foreigners in the Indian Super League (ISL). Your two strikers will be taken up by foreigners. So will your two centre backs and two midfielders. That means the spine of your national team will never develop," he stated.

In the current scenario, India does not seem to have any striker capable of replacing prolific Sunil Chhetri. When asked why the Indian system is struggling to produce a high-calibre striker, Ranjit Bajaj pointed to a deeper, structural problem.

"If there is no hospital in my country, why would I study to be a doctor? Similarly, if Indians are not getting a chance to play as strikers, then why choose to play in that position? They will opt for other roles that offer a better chance of getting game time," said Bajaj.

The analogy is painfully real. Talented Indian youngsters see foreign players being preferred on the team sheet and eventually compromise on their preferred positions - particularly that of a striker - just to survive.

Not long ago, during talent hunts in Manipur, "1,000 out of 3,000 boys wanted to be strikers," Bajaj recounted. "Now, that number has gone downhill." Parents are increasingly discouraging their children from playing as strikers. The goalposts aren't just shifting - they are being outsourced.

And so, the replacement for the 40-year-old Chhetri might never get game time at the top tier of Indian football. "If a player does not get game time, will we ever get another Sunil Chhetri? If Manvir Singh plays as a winger in the ISL for a full season, how can he perform well as a striker for India?" Bajaj asked.

Bajaj is not against foreign-born players outright. "This can work as a stopgap policy for 7–8 years, and in that time, you invest 1000 crores in the grassroots." If that does not happen, he warns, "you are saying you will rely on outsiders forever. And that way, Indian football will be poorer."

Bajaj also pointed to players living abroad who want to play for India but are held back by red tape. "There is Triman Ranvir, who was born and brought up in Belgium and played in the country's top division. He once came to India solely to play for the national team. He was talented, but current rules do not allow overseas players to play immediately. They have to wait for five years to get that chance. Arata Izumi's case was tragic. He gave up his Japanese passport but could not play for India because he lost his eligibility due to the rules India has in place."

Bajaj, however, refused to buy into the theory that India cannot build a quality team on its own and needs foreign aid to qualify for the World Cup. "Iceland has a population of 300,000, many of whom work in other professions. Yet, they qualified for the World Cup because their grassroots system is strong. Similarly, Finland, with a small population, has played fascinating football. We have 1.40 billion people and are still scouting overseas players. That just shows how messed up the system is," he added.

Question of Loyalty

Then comes the question of loyalty. Who gets to represent India? Bajaj is unapologetically strict: "Any person who chooses another country over us cannot be allowed to play for the national team. He has to show that he bleeds blue. Anyone willing to give up their overseas passport should be allowed to play, as you never know if that player might leave India for better opportunities abroad."

"You cannot bleed red for England or green for Pakistan and still play for India just because you are good at football," he added.

Yet, there is another side to this debate. Shabbir Ali, the legendary Indian striker who knows Indian football inside out, is one of the ardent advocates of the idea. He believes that good overseas players coming in will raise the standard of Indian football. "They will also try to live up to the expectations because playing for a country is a matter of great respect. Naturally, the standard will go up, and our players will also try to match them."

Shabbir points to former England U-21 player Hamza Choudhury, who played for Bangladesh - his mother's country - against India in the AFC Asian Cup 2027 Qualifiers in March. "He was better than other Bangladeshi players. He was taking the lead. Why did Choudhury come here? Because he is not getting a chance in England," said Shabbir, a member of the AIFF Executive Committee.

"The idea of representing India is not a small feat," said Shabbir. "Playing for the country is an extraordinary experience. Nothing can be compared with that." Even for foreign-born players, wearing India's badge "will increase their value. They can say, 'I represented the country."

Indian Football Star Backs The Idea But Warns Against Lowering Standards

Speaking on the issue, former India international Dipendu Biswas—a stalwart who played for Mohun Bagan, East Bengal, and Mohammedan Sporting—termed the development "a positive step," but cautioned against indiscriminate selection.

"It's not like all 11 players will be OCIs. Indian domestic players will continue to feature, but training and playing alongside overseas-based footballers will raise their game. Just look at how Qatar built their squad with overseas talent ahead of the World Cup," said Biswas.

However, he stressed the need for clear selection criteria, warning that average foreign-based players shouldn't be brought in at the cost of Indian talent.

"If we're picking a striker, for instance, he must be better than Sunil Chhetri. Otherwise, what's the point?" he asked.

Biswas also emphasised the importance of integration and preparation, saying it's not enough for OCI players to simply be based abroad — they must be willing to attend national camps and blend into the team setup. He lamented the decline in camp durations and competitive matches, stating that earlier squads had the benefit of months-long training and multiple tournaments.

"We used to have camps lasting almost two months. Now, those have reduced drastically. The number of games for the national team, too, is limited—around 30 to 35 a year, which is not enough to build proper team chemistry," he added.

As the AIFF and Sports Ministry weigh the potential benefits and pitfalls, the debate over OCI representation has exposed deeper concerns around long-term planning, infrastructure, and the development pipeline in Indian football. Interestingly, while the All India Football Federation (AIFF) has been vocal in its support for the inclusion of OCIs, officials admit that no high-profile players are immediately eligible, even if the ban is reversed.

Rahul Mehra, a Supreme Court Lawyer and noted sports activist, added a critical legal layer to the debate. Speaking to Sports Now, Mehra said the current rule dates back to the tenure of former Sports Minister MS Gill in 2009–2010 and was originally framed to protect Indian passport holders who trained within the country’s ecosystem.

"The reason at that point in time was, which is probably a good logical reason, I think, you know, there is a counterpoint to it as well," he said before adding, "And where do we want India to be positioned is where the decision then should be taken in that direction. So, there are two viewpoints. The stand of the government so far has been that we need to protect our own players. People who have invested and who have given their entire life and they've been practising, you know, within the domains of the jurisdiction of the country, they are the ones who should be given a priority over the ones who have chosen different paths and better pastures for themselves. "

Thereafter, he explained that the original intent was to avoid scenarios in which athletes who trained abroad and took up foreign citizenship for better career prospects could return and claim national team slots once they failed to break into more competitive ecosystems.

"And, you know, have gone and trained themselves and taken the citizenship of another country based on their sporting performance. And then when they do not find, you know, place in that competitive infrastructure or their competitive environment there, in that country, then it becomes easier for them because the level of performance amongst Indians in India in different sports disciplines is not that high globally," he said before adding, "So, it's easier for those people performing at a higher level, you know, performance level to be able to easily break in and then represent India if they would be permitted to represent as an OCI cardholder or as even, let's say, a dual citizenship of sorts."

However, Mehra also acknowledged a pressing counter-argument — India’s underperformance on the global sports stage. "The counterpoint to it is, in any case, we are not a very high-performing country as far as, you know, medals go in the Olympics and other top world events, right? Especially in athletics, swimming, and various other disciplines, where you can actually get medals by the dozen. So, why don't you allow the best of the best talent to come and take? You are talking about OCI holders, I am saying, come and take Indian citizenship."

"So, maybe you can say that in certain sports, you will not allow it. Because let's say shooting. Shooting, we have the best of the best in the world. Why should we allow international players to come in? And there is already so much competition within shooting. Similarly, in cricket, you don't need that. So, you need to identify which sports those are. Contact sports, a lot of them, we are pretty good at."

"So, you will have to create an intelligible differential. It might hit Article 14 for sure. So, therefore, either you will have to go the whole hog or not. But I would say in any case, in other sports, most of the international players will not be able to break it because the In-house growth story is so strong. Like shooting and cricket, it will never happen. The best of the best will not be able to break into our performance standard. Because we are right at the top. We are actually world leaders. Therefore, I think even if you open it up for everyone, it might be a good idea.

Despite the legal intricacies, Mehra’s personal stance is clear: " It's a No-brainer, according to me. For the simple reason, you are not even asking a foreign citizen to come. You are only asking your own person of Indian origin to come and play for India. I mean, it's a no-brainer."

"Get some medals, and get yourself top of the medal tally, at least. And then, ask them to also train their peers and inspire their peers, and the peers will come up and win some more medals. So obviously, it's a no-brainer."

While the debate is far from over, but Mehra’s voice adds clarity to a conversation that is only gaining momentum.