“In cases of abuse by persons in positions of authority,” it is rarely the case that the crime “begins with abuse or violence.” It begins with trust. The accusation against the national shooting coach, Ankush Bharadwaj, by a 17-year-old national-level shooter provides a peek into the potential for abuse in situations where power and proximity are leveraged with the aim of mentorship.

This is more than just a criminal prosecution. This is a textbook illustration of grooming.

The Context: When Authority Is Absolute

Elite sports have a strict pecking order. Coaches are not merely sports instructors but are also gatekeepers of opportunities and gateways to dreams that can be realised both nationally and internationally. To disobey a sports coach can sometimes be akin to ending a dream for a young athlete, and that too a minor.

According to police records, the offender was no casual coach. Ankush Bharadwaj is a former international shooter, gold medalist in the Commonwealth Youth Games, and one of the coaches chosen by the Sports Authority of India based on recommendations from the National Rifle Association of India after the Paris Olympics of 2024. Ankush also had his personal shooting academy.

This is important because power is the first grooming tool.

“Professional Help” as a Boundary Breaker

According to the FIR, there was a sequence to this alleged attack that is familiar in abuse by an alleged mentor.

After an event at Dr Karni Singh Shooting Range on December 16, 2025, he allegedly, he asked the juvenile to come to the lobby of a hotel to "write down her performance report." Of course, this looks quite professional. However, what it actually did was to move from a public sports arena to a controlled setup.

These acts of physical contact are described by the FIR as the coach refraining from recovery care as she “offered to crack her back.” It should be remembered that this reframing has a crucial role in the grooming process as it allows “grooming to conceal violations of physical boundaries as professional needs such as stretching, correction, recovery, or treatment.”

The discourse of care removes resistance.

Why “Recovery Techniques” Are a Known Grooming Tool

In numerous documented abuse cases worldwide, physical contact is introduced incrementally and justified for necessary performance. The athlete learns to disregard pain, suppress instinct, and rely on knowledge.

In situations where a minor is denied, it becomes clear where the mismatch is. According to the FIR, denial was followed by force.

The disturbing aspect of this particular situation is that this athlete is allegedly being put in a position where it did not feel safe to refuse what the coach wanted.

Threats That Target the Future, Not the Present

Following the assault, according to the FIR, the coach threatened the athlete that if she ever mentioned this incident in the future, she would never succeed in the sport as a professional. Such threats are hardly ever general in nature; threats concerning future achievement are the most effective for a young athlete.

For a 17-year-old, for someone who has put years into training, silence might sound like self-preservation.

The claims of follow-up phone calls to her parents, in which the coach complained that she ‘was not listening’ to what he was saying in training sessions, are characteristic of the same behaviour: the control of the narrative ahead of any questions that could logically be asked.

The 15-Day Silence: Trauma Is Not Weakness

The survivor reported the alleged assault to her mother on January 1, 2026, more than two weeks after the incident. This latency is rarely understood.

Silence after trauma is never consent; it is a result of shock, fear, confusion, and survival instincts.

This silence is further exacerbated in young athletes by the fear of losing years of hard work, letting family down, and being blamed for "misunderstanding" authority.

Speaking up here is not belated courage; speaking up is any courage whatsoever.

Institutional Response: Speed Matters

Following the FIR filed on January 6, 2026, the NRAI suspended the coach immediately and issued a show-cause notice. Police began examining CCTV footage from the hotel and shooting range to corroborate the timeline.

These steps are necessary, but they also underline a larger question. Why are minors being asked to meet coaches alone in private spaces in the first place?

Hotel Rooms Are Not Classrooms

Elite sport often normalises extraordinary access in the name of performance. This case challenges that normalisation.

Training feedback does not require hotel rooms. Recovery does not require isolation. Mentorship does not require secrecy.

When professional boundaries blur, risk increases.

Why This Case Matters Beyond One Individual

This is not just about one coach.

This is about systems that value medals over protection, silence over questions, and power over accountability.

"So, we're not just dealing with one coach."

The act of speaking out by a survivor on January 1 did more than launch a police investigation. It upset a system of operation that requires silent cooperation.

If the allegations are proven, this case will stand as a stark reminder that grooming often wears the uniform of professionalism, does not announce itself as danger, and thus introduces itself as help.

The job now is not only that of the police, but also of sporting institutions to redraw those boundaries in clear sight and relentlessly enforce them.

Because no medal is worth its price in silence.

References:

The Times of India

• Article: “Teen shooter accuses national coach of rape in Surajkund hotel, Pocso case filed”

Faridabad Police (Women’s Police Station, NIT)

• Document: FIR under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

.    .     .