Pakistan won its first and only world cricket title 15 years ago. In 2007, they were knocked out of the World Cup by cricket minnows Ireland. (Getty Images)

India and Pakistan share a common border and gained their independence from Britain simultaneously 60 years ago. They also have another common connection: athletic futility.

The two nations boast the second and sixth highest populations in the world, with a combined total of about 1.3 billion people — roughly 20 per cent of the world's population.

Yet they are virtual lightweights in the sporting world, aside from the colonial games of cricket and field hockey.

This was never more evident than at the 2004 Athens Olympics, where a single medal was earned between the neighbouring countries.

India, which ranks behind only China in population with more than 1.1 billion people, captured silver in the shooting competition — only its third medal in the past three Games. On the other side of the boundary, Pakistan, a country of nearly 170 million, competed in only six sports and departed Greece empty-handed for the third straight Olympics.

To put those gloomy results into frightening context, consider that one athlete — American phenom Michael Phelps — swam to six gold medals in Athens, prompting an ever-persistent question:

Why do India and Pakistan continually fail to produce elite athletes on the international stage?

While some will argue that athletes in both countries receive little financial support from their governments, Faraz Sarwat, author of The Cricket World Cup, says this viewpoint is too simplistic.

"I think it has a lot do with infrastructure and the facilities that are not available to athletes, particularly through schools," Sarwat told CBCSports.ca.

"The lack of facilities, playing opportunities and sponsorship are probably what contributes most to the lack of talent that you see coming through [India and Pakistan]."

There is a general misconception that cricket, the most popular and cherished sport among fans of both countries, receives the majority of the government funding and operates on a different level. But the game reaps most of its proceeds from different avenues that are simply not available to other sports, Sarwat said.

"The cricket boards are generally independent bodies and the revenues are generated mostly through television rights, gate sales and sponsorship. That is what's fuelling the sport. Historically, even cricket players were very poorly paid, a [problem] that's just recently being corrected."

In comparison, government support and an enormous population led to China's rise in prominence with athletes collecting 32 gold medals in Athens — just three shy of the United States.

As the 2008 Beijing Olympics near, Chinese officials expect to surpass the mighty Americans and hope to continue the momentum as a sporting superpower for years to come.

"It's more politics than anything else," said Sarwat. "Past Communist regimes like the Soviets and East Germans used to put a lot of money and effort into sports and China is no different. Basically, winning at the Olympics means you're winning a political battle too. The China story resembles the former U.S.S.R. more than it does India."

Sania Mirza is first Indian female player to be ranked in the top 30 and also holds six doubles titles. (Getty Images)

Trounced by smaller or poorer countries

Many also suggest India and Pakistan's status as developing countries preclude them from competing against other powerful nations due to money and other resource issues.

Yet that theory doesn't seem to hold when it comes, for example, soccer — an inexpensive team sport that garners the highest participation rate in the world. It's a good measure of the inconsequential stature both India and Pakistan exhibit on the international landscape.

FIFA, soccer's governing body, currently ranks India (in 162nd place) and Pakistan (176) behind Andorra — a tiny European nation with a population of about 71,000 people.

Even in coveted sports such as field hockey and cricket, India and Pakistan have been eclipsed by emerging countries over the past several years.

During its golden age, India captured six consecutive Olympic field hockey gold medals from 1928 to 1956. This remarkable run featured the great Dhyan Chand Singh, who led India to three golds in that unprecedented stretch. However, India won its eighth and final gold at the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

And despite being among the top cricket contenders in the world, India's lone World Cup championship occurred back in 1983.

Pakistan, meanwhile, won the last of its three field hockey gold medals in 1984 and claimed the nation's only cricket World Cup title 15 years ago, a victory that allowed legendary batsman Imran Khan to fund a hospital aiding cancer patients in memory of his mother.

Since 1992, the country has endured prolonged frustration magnified by a shocking defeat to Ireland in March at the 2007 World Cup in the West Indies. The next day, Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer died of what was eventually determined to be natural causes.

Big improvement before 2008 Games unlikely

Still, the title droughts experienced by both countries were inevitable, according to Sarwat.

"Others have caught up," he said. "The Australians [winners of the past three World Cup cricket titles] have been far and away the best in the world. There are not necessarily any problems with the state of the Indian and Pakistan teams: it's just that Australia is better than everybody else."

Pakistan has also relinquished its dominance in squash after producing the two greatest players of all time — Jahangir Khan and Jansher Khan — who won a combined 14 World Open championships. No other squash player from Pakistan has won since Jansher Khan's last title in 1996.

As for the immediate future, Sarwat sees negligible progress being made with the Beijing Olympics less than a year away.

"I would be very surprised if there were massive gains," he admits. "I think you will still see one or two medals on the Indian side and if someone on Pakistan's boxing team has a good day, then you might see one medal there, but probably not more than that."