Daily Times - Site Edition Sunday, April 02, 2006VIEW: The cost of being India-centric —Ahmad Faruqui
Now that the military budget is hitting $5 billion — a very
large amount for any country, let alone a poor country, the
opposition needs to raise the issue of military transparency and
accountability in parliament. This would be entirely appropriate,
given that the official line is that that the country has no
external enemies. The timing is auspiciousIn recent months, General Pervez Musharraf has repeatedly stated
that Pakistan’s foreign policy is not India-centric. But does this
talk jibe with his actions?On March 20, General Musharraf witnessed firsthand the second-in-
six-months launch of the Babur cruise missile. One is unlikely to
see this nuclear-capable missile being used against internal
enemies, whether they are irritants in Balochistan or foreigners in
the Tribal Areas. The only use for the missile is to counter the
threat posed by India’s Brahmos cruise missile.In additions, the deal for the American F-16 fighters is back on
track, now that the October earthquake has receded in the
background. Just like Babur, this high-tech fighter would hardly be
the weapon of choice against internal enemies. It is designed to
neutralise the threat posed by the Indian Air Force, which in the
medium-to-long term is likely to be armed with F-16s and F-18s, in
addition to Russian SU-30s.If there was any doubt that Musharraf continues to pursue an India-
centric foreign policy, it was removed by Islamabad’s decision to
hike its defence budget by Rs 61 billion. Now, that’s serious money,
representing a billion dollars. Moreover, it represents a hike of 27
percent in last year’s defence expenditures of Rs 223 billion. This
increase could not be designed to match the inflation (single digit
according to government claims). It could not represent incremental
funding to continue the “war against terror” in the Tribal Areas or
in Balochistan. It is squarely and simply designed to keep India at
bay, while allowing Pakistan to push a militaristic agenda in
Kashmir.China’s increasing military profile, in particular its “string of
pearls” strategy in the Indian Ocean, figures prominently in the
Indian strategic calculus. While the Indian Army is mostly focused
on Pakistan, its Air Force and Navy are mostly focused on China. The
Air Force is improving its capabilities through the acquisition of
Israeli-made Phalcon airborne early warning and control systems. The
Indian Navy is on its way to becoming a blue water navy. With its
upgraded fleet of submarines and the possible deployment of two
aircraft carriers within the next decade it is developing sea denial
and limited power projection capabilities.Pakistan’s military spending programme, being entirely India-
specific, faces an impossible task of countering a perceived enemy
that is six times larger. Between 1947 and 2006, Pakistan’s military
expenditures showed an annual growth rate of 11.5 percent in nominal
terms and 6.5 percent in constant dollars. These growth rates match
India’s growth rates between 1962 and 2006, which were 11.6 percent
in nominal terms and seven percent in constant dollars. Even then,
the military balance remains heavily in India’s favour.Using an econometric model, one can explain the evolution of
Pakistani military spending almost entirely by reviewing the
evolution of Indian military spending. The relationship is valid
whether one looks at data in nominal local currency units or in
constant dollars. The model shows that for every 10 percent increase
in Indian military spending, Pakistan has increased its military
spending by 10 percent the following year. This has been Islamabad’s
way of keeping the local-currency ratio of Indian-to-Pakistani
military spending roughly around 3:1. During the past four decades,
it has fluctuated between 2:1 and 4:1.Last year, India spent Rs 817 billion on its military. That
translates into $18.3 billion (the Indian rupee is worth about a
third more than a Pakistani rupee). This year, it is expected to
spend Rs 890 billion ($20 billion), about nine percent more than
last year. So why has Pakistan raised its defence spending by three
times the amount in percentage terms as India? Because the ratio (in
local currency) between Indian military spending and Pakistan’s
military spending had deteriorated during the past three years to
almost 4:1. Pakistan’s latest increase will bring the ratio down to
3:1.It should be noted that official military expenditures published
by both countries do not include the cost of military pensions nor
the cost of large-scale nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. In
addition, in the case of Pakistan, they do not include the costs of
large weapon systems such as submarines, tanks or fighters. Like so
much else that happens in Islamabad, the accounting of these
additional expenditures is a mystery.In India’s case, the budget of the central government has a large
section devoted to military spending. It tells us that about 40
percent goes to the capital account and the rest to the current
account. Within the current account, 66 percent goes to the army, 20
percent to the air force and 14 percent to the navy. Of the army’s
budget, 42 percent goes to salaries and so on. The ministry of
finance in New Delhi provides all together some 85 pages of detail
on military spending, a stark contrast to the single line entry in
Pakistan’s budget. It is unfortunate that Shaukat Aziz has not shown
the same zeal in making military expenditures transparent as he has
displayed in making earthquake relief expenditures transparent.That would be a welcome change, since the Pakistani military has
provided no accounting of its expenses for almost six decades. Now
that the military budget is hitting $5 billion — a very large amount
for any country, let alone a poor country the opposition needs to
raise the issue of military transparency and accountability in
parliament. This would be entirely appropriate, given that the
official line is that that the country has no external enemies.The timing is auspicious, since the prime minister of the only
known “enemy” state has just offered a treaty of peace and
friendship to Pakistan. If Pakistan would rethink its militarily
forward policy on Kashmir and focus henceforth all its energies on
seeking a diplomatic settlement to the dispute, about half of its
military expenditure would become unnecessary. By so doing, its
defence spending would come down to about 2.5 percent of GDP, in
line with that of other South Asian countries. Such a move would
free up $2.5 billion dollars, or Rs 147.5 billion, for development
programmes.Thus far, Islamabad has shown no sign of changing its India-
centric defence posture. Strategic myopia has crept into the DNA of
Pakistan’s defence and foreign policy establishment. How long will
it continue to hold back the human and social development of the 160
million people of Pakistan? That is the $64 million question.
Pakistan needs to gear up for fighting an economic battle in the
international market place, not for a war that is unlikely to ever
take place.Dr Ahmad Faruqui is director of research at the American Institute
of International Studies and can be reached at Faruqui@
Home | Editorial
Re: is Pakistan india centric?
Definitely.....when bush came to india and there was hooplah over nuclear deal, paksitani government was talking about not being india-centric in everything barring military. But when the news of good economic growth of pakistan came, every pakistani diplomat including musharraf were talking about competing with india.
Re: is Pakistan india centric?
Love and hate is alwasy "mutual" Ok if not always, it is definitely true for Pak-Bharat affairs.
However it is nothing new. Pakistan and Bharat are modern and bigger versions of old Rajas, Sultans, and Nawabs.
Just like these Rajas, Pakistan and Bharat will never let each other live in peace and prosperity.
Re: is Pakistan india centric?
Kooks, post link asap. Pls follow the forum regulations. Or risk having the thread closed...