Indo-Pak Military Expenditures and Global Trends

Apart from P-5 countries, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, and Italy have been grouped among the world’s ten top most countries, which spend maximum on their defence expenditures. Even under the moderate Democrat President Barack Obama, United States spends 53 percent of the global military expenditures. Until 2009, US share in the global military spending was 43 percent. For the year 2010, it has increased another $47 billion in its defence budget, thus bringing the total volume of its defence budget to $ 680 billion. Otherwise, over the last decade, there has been an increase in the military spending of almost all countries of the world. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), estimates, released on June 2, 2010, 1531 billion USD were expended on militaries as the defence budgets. Overall, there has been an increase of 5.9 percent in the defence spending during 2009, as compared to year 2008. However, there been huge increase in the military budgets since 2000. The estimated increase is 49 percent from year 2000 to 2009, which unprecedented after the demise of cold war.

This enormous increase in the defence budgets of the countries is almost everywhere. Even countries like Nigeria and Algeria has doubled their military budgets. “Kazakhstan has increased its defence spending by 360 percent, Azerbaijan by nearly 500 percent, the Democratic Republic of Congo by as much 663 percent.” For the financial year, 2010-2011, India increased its Military budget by 34 percent. India is already in the list of top ten defence spenders. Pakistan however has increased its defence budget by 16.935 percent. In real term, this increase is less than 5 percent, once the over 12 percent inflation rate is incorporated into it.

This ignorable increase in the budget of Pakistan is primarily to meet the challenges of combating the militancy and terrorism along its western frontiers. This fact was amply highlighted by Finance Minister, who said during the budget speech that, “We are facing a situation in which our armed forces, paramilitary forces, and security forces are laying down their lives … They should know from this House that we all stand by them and that Security is our topmost concern”. In the wake of the ongoing counter insurgency operations, in FATA, KPK and parts of Balochistan Province, this increase is considered minimum essential. Indeed, a major chunk of the budget is expended on the pay, allowances, and maintenance expenditures of defence personnel and the current holdings.

As per SIPRI Year Book-2010, there has been a constant rise in the Indian defence budget since 2001. Following figures indicate this rise in term of billion US dollars ($ b);

2001 22.636

2002 22.566

2003 23.070

2004 26.773

2005 28.295

2006 28.465

2007 28.866

2008 32.334

2009 36.600

Contrary to the Indian budget, there has been a decline in Pakistani defence budgets over the same period. In terms of billion US dollars ($ b) the volume of the successive budgets has been as:

2001 4.195	2002 4.508									2003 4.814							2004 5.015		2005 5.210			2006 5.269			2007 5.275		2008 4.877			2009 4.823

In-spite of the heavy volume of Indian defence budget, for the years 2010-2011, it has increased its defence budget by 34 percent. Traditionally, there has been a rivalry between India and Pakistan, ever since they got independence in August 1947. Except a brief conflict between India and China in 1962, India has no adversary in either South or Southeast Asia. Currently India and China are widely cooperating in the field of economy and trade. The bi-lateral trade volume between these countries is over $40 billion. All border issues between them have almost been resolved. In the last sixty years, India has fought three wars with Pakistan. After disintegrating Pakistan in 1971, there has been no military engagement of Indian Military, where it could have expanded this much budget. Pakistan however, has been persistently engaged in the field of military. For its own safety and security, Pakistan had to stop Soviet expansion towards warm waters, after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Following the unfortunate incident of 9/11, it has become a front line state in the global war against terror. In the process, it has to fight an unending militancy and terrorism, still ongoing; indeed, the outcome of Pakistan’s partnership with West and US during the both campaigns. From the above-mentioned volume of the budgets, one can easily make out the difference in the military spending of both countries. Indeed, there are no parallels between these two budgets.

As clearly reflected in the abovementioned estimates of an authentic organization (SIPRI), there has been a constant decline in the defence spending of Pakistan since 2001. It is now around 2 percent of the GDP as compared to over 4 percent in 1980s and over 3 percent in 1990s. Although, even this budget is unaffordable for the economically poor countries like Pakistan, but, in view of a constant Indian threat on the eastern borders and a state of war since last nine years along the western borders has necessitated this defence spending. Premier Yousaf Raza Gillani has recently said that, “We remain concerned over Pakistan-specific Indian military doctrines such as the cold start envisaging a limited conventional war under the nuclear overhang, huge increase in the Indian military budget and massive weapon acquisition.”

As per the Military Balance 2010, issued by the world’s renowned British Think Tank; IISS, economic growth in India fell to 7.3 percent in 2008, after attaining excellent average growth rate of 8.75% annually in previous five years. It has fallen to less than 6 in 2009. Nevertheless, despite the tight fiscal background, Indian has not reduced its defence spending. Rather, from 2000 to 2009 the defence budget has been enhanced to 50% in real terms. After the Mumbai attack, November 2008, the defence was increased to another 21%. Furthermore, the immediate impact of the Mumbai attacks can be seen in revised budget figures for 2008, which included a 32% increase in spending by the army over its original allocation. This Indian heavy defence spending has been pointed out by both the Asian Development Bank and the IMF. They have even warned that India’s large and persistent budget imbalance threatens fiscal sustainability, and they have urged the authorities to consider a new, stronger budgetary framework when the existing Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act (FRBMA) expire in 2010. However, in 2010 budget, there is another increase of 34 percent in the Indian defence Budget in real terms.

This heavy Indian Defence expenditure, six times more than the Pakistani budget is primarily being expended on the modernization of its three services. The particular attention is being given to Indian Air Force and Navy. Through the enhancement in its naval and air power, India intends achieving the absolute military superiority over Pakistan, which Indian Army could not get in spite of its being two times more than Pak Army is. India is adding latest submarines having the nuclear capability in its naval fleet. These include the sophisticated Akula class and French origin submarines. India air force equally being modernized through the purchase of MiG 35 and F-16/18 aircraft. Its Army is following the Cold Start Doctrine against Pakistan and has more recently threatened to fight a limited war under nuclear overhang. It has even hinted to fight two fronts war against China and Pakistan simultaneously.

In mid 1990s, Indian Defence Ministry has laid down the criteria that its defence industrial base should be able to produce 70 percent military hardware indigenously. However, till-date, it is only able to only 30 percent of its defence needs and that too in a highly uncertain state. From year 2001 onwards, Indian private sector has been incorporated in the defence industry, but it too has not yielded positive results. In its revised policy, Indian Defence Ministry has introduced new measures to enhance its indigenous industry. These measures include; 26% investment in domestic defence production by overseas defence companies; publication of defence procurement procedures, which favours the indigenous research and development programme, and introduction of an offset policy, stipulating that the defence contracts of more than Rs. 3 billion must provide offset to the value of 30% of the deal.

Although India is still importing bulk of its defence products, but it is more emphasizing on the technology transfer, rather the simple purchase. Its defence companies are now producing the defence equipment of Russian and Israeli origin under licence. Production of T-90 tanks and Su-30MK1 fighter aircrafts are the practical example of high-level cooperation. After Russia, Israel has become number two partner of the India in defence cooperation. Over the last few years, Israel has provided, “a wide range of military equipment, including Phalcon airborne warning and control (AWAC) aircraft, Barak missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and Tavor rifles.” Besides, a number defence deals took place between two countries during- 2009, particularly in the wake of Mumbai attacks.

Through a deal Indian Navy procured five aerostat-programmable radars from Israeli Aerories space Industries (IAI) for plugging the gap in the Indian coastal security system. India also launched the IAI made all weather imaging satellite in April 2009. Through a recent bid, India has concluded a deal of 1.4 billion USD for the procurement of medium-range surface to-to-air missile system with IAI. Indian DRDO and Israeli IAI are working in the close cooperation to develop an air defence system, “capable of detecting and destroying hostile aircraft, cruise missiles, and surface-to-surface rockets at a range of 70–80km.”

Under these real time threats looming along its eastern borders and involvement of Pakistani Security Forces all along the Western Borders, and other internal fronts, Pakistan cannot remain aloof to its defence needs. It has to match or at least maintain minimum credible deterrence to its adversary. For the maintenance cost and the updating of its arsenals, it need minimum defence budget. The Government of Pakistan has realized the essentiality of these requirements, thus made the defence allocation to keep its forces worthy to fight the tough challenges ahead. As frequently stated by the incumbent Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Pervaz Kayani, nation’s support is mandatory for the success of its military, both internally to fight militancy and externally to defend the geo-graphical borders.

The writer Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan is a South Asian analyst. Email: drmk_edu@yahoomail.com

OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION AND SECULARISM--Part I

By Wajahat Masood

The founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, wanted a separate country for Muslims but his political upbringing in a pluralist society prevented him from declaring Pakistan an Islamic state. Contrary to the general perception in India, Mr Jinnah was arguably a secular and liberal Muslim who wanted a Pakistan where all citizens would be equal in the eyes of the constitution irrespective of their religion, caste or creed. But leaders like Liaqat Ali Khan and power hungry opportunistic religious leaders wanted it to be otherwise. In this beautifully written series titled, "Objectives Resolution and Secularism", Mr Wajahat Masood delves deep into history to find out how Jinnah's dream of a secular and democratic Pakistan was shattered. -- Editor

A few days ago brother Asif Mahmood raised some questions. He does not raise questions, rather raises a storm. Of late no response has been received from the other side of the political dividing line. The irony is that from among the people on this side, the gentleman has targetted those 'babalog' who do not read Urdu in the first place. It was decided that though I am not the target, I should respond because the voice of conscience should be responded.

In his questions he had quoted half a dozen sections and asked if 'the self proclaimed broadminded' people were willing to accept the supremacy of those sections, considering them part and parcel of the Constitution of Pakistan. This humble writer has selected Section 2(a) from the slightly long list. The sub-section A of Section 2 of the Constitution of Pakistan is a gift of the dictatorship of General Ziaul Haque. He had declared the Objectives Resolution approved by the first Legislative Assembly of Pakistan on March 12, 1949 an important part of the Constitution by including the preface to the original constitution of 1973 in it.

So, dear gentleman, I regard the Constitution of 1973 as the sole guarantor of Pakistan's sovereignty. Therefore, I abide by everything written in the Constitution including Section 2(a). However, in the light of the established principles of democratic lawmaking, the Constitution of Pakistan is an amendable document which in itself contains the procedures of amendment. In principle I disagree with the Section 2(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan. My political belief is that whenever it is possible to amend the Constitution by two-third majority of Parliament, this undemocratic section introduced by the dictator, should be omitted.

Now the question is why I am opposed to the Section 2(a) of the Constitution. The answer is simple; I consider the Objectives Resolution contradictory to the democratic principles. The Objectives Resolution was presented in the Legislative Assembly by Prime Minister Liyaqat Ali Khan exactly six months after the death of the founder of Pakistan. It generated heated debate in the assembly for the next four days. The opposition leader from the East Pakistan Mr Chattopadhyay had vehemently opposed it. The draft of this Resolution was prepared by Liaqat Ali Khan and Shabbir Ahmad Usmani in the peaceful valley of Marri. No demands for such a Resolution had been made from the Legislature or sections of the people during the first 18 months of the Legislative Assembly. In contrast, the session of the Legislative Assembly held in March 1949 was called in relation with the annual budget. The Objectives Resolution was like the illusion of a pigeon conjured up by the magician to divert the people's attention from the beautiful bird called democracy.

It will not be irrelevant here to tell you that Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was a pesh imam living in ignominy in the Muslim-minority state of Hyderabad Deccan who was best known for his on-demand fatwas on inheritance-related disputes of the Muslim Zamindars. After the formation of Pakistan, he landed up in Pakistan and assumed the title of Shaikhul Islam. He had arrived in Paksitan in way back August 1947 whereas the sultanate of Mir Usman Ali in Hyderabad lasted till September 12, 1948. Apart from giving shape of an Islamic state to the Muslim majority country of Pakistan, his duties included solving the shariah related issues of the rulers of the states of Khairpur (Sindh), Bahawalpur (Punjab), Qalawat and Kharan (Balochistan). My religionist friends often remind me that the Flag of Pakistan was hoisted by Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. But they forget to point out that the first session of the Legislative Assembly of Pakistan in which Qaid-e-Azam Md Ali Jinnah was also present started without a recitation of the Quran.

The differences in points of view between Liaqat Ali Khan and Md Ali Jinnah over the future political shape of Pakistan are history now. Jinnah's destination was a modern democratic state whereas the political temperament of Liaqat Ali Khan was free from democratic shackles.

Before analysing and explaining the text of the Objectives Resolution, it is equally important to pay attention to the document which became a basis for the demand of Pakistan, the movement for Pakistan and the establishment of Pakistan, that is , the basic points of the resolution passed in the annual conference of the Muslim League in Lahore on March 24, 1940 were two. In the first point, the political issue of India was conditioned with such a geographical bandobast with the help of which the Muslim majority areas in the east and west of India could be carved out as separate states. In the second part of the resolution, 'appropriate, effective and binding' reservations were demanded for the religious minorities to come into existence as a result of these geographical alterations. It was understandable that these reservations were being demanded equally for the Muslims of the Hindu majority India and the non-Muslim citizens of the Muslim majority Pakistan. In the Lahore resolution the term 'Islamic state', 'shariah-based system' or 'Islamic system' was not even once mentioned.

In 1946, the elected Parliamentary representatives of Muslim League amended the resolution and replaced the word 'states' with 'state' but even in this final phase of the movement for Pakistan no need was felt to include the concepts like 'mullaism' or 'Islamic system' in the guiding principles of the Muslim League. Albeit, interestingly, addressing the Muslim League convention in Delhi on April 11,1946, Qaid-e-Azam said, "What are we fighting for? Theocracy is not our goal, nor do we want a theocratic state. No one denies the existence of faith, and faith is indeed close to our heart. But there are other things which are equally necessary, such as our social life and our economic life, and how are you going to safeguard your economic life without political power?" Here the Qaid-e-Azam was distinguishing between religion and politics. It is in the knowledge of all that fatwas of kufr (infidelity) issued against Qaide Azam were in reaction to his speech in Lucknow session of the Muslim League in 1938 in which he had advocated the participation of women in public life.

Jinnah And Urdu-Bengali Controversy

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

This is a quick blog to correct a historical fallacy. A false impression persists – thanks to people like Amar Jaleel and the like who in the right royal Urdu press fashion have a hard time sticking to the facts- that Jinnah- who according to Jaleel was drugged or cornered into making the speech in question- somehow told Bengalis to outlaw Bengali language when he declared Urdu to be the state language of Pakistan. This is historically inaccurate. This blog is not to discuss whether Jinnah’s declaration was politically suave or naïve but to set the record straight about what it was that Jinnah said which laid foundations for the Urdu-Bengali discord in Pakistan and led to Pakistan ultimately declaring both Urdu and Bengali the “national languages” of Pakistan. Ironically Jinnah did not even use the term “national language”, drawing the very valid distinction between a state language or lingua franca and a national language.

The two speeches that are at the center of controversy were made on 21^st and 24^th of March, 1948 at a public meeting and then at Dacca University convention. In both speeches Jinnah took a consistent stand:

1. The people of Bengal were free to choose Bengali as the official language of the Bengal province. This he said very clearly and unambiguously on both occasions and the premier of Bengal – Khawaja Nazimuddin also reaffirmed this.
2. Urdu alone would be the state language and the lingua franca of the Pakistan state.
3. Bengali – like other provincial languages- could be the official language of the East Bengal province but not the Pakistan state and the Pakistan center (Jinnah’s words).

(See Pages 150 and 158 of “Jinnah Speeches And Statements 1947-1948” Millennium edition Oxford University Press- he said “Realizing, however, that the statement that your Prime Minister made on the language controversy, left no room for agitation, in so far as it conceded the right of the people of this province to choose Bengali as their official language if they so wished, they changed their tactics. They started demanding that Bengali should be the state language of the Pakistan centre, and since they could not overlook the obvious claims of Urdu as the official language of a Muslim state, they proceeded to demand that both Bengali and Urdu should be the state languages of Pakistan. Make no mistake about it. There can only be one state language if the component parts of this state are to march forward in unison, and in my opinion, that can only be Urdu”)

It may be remembered that in this - wrong or right- Jinnah’s policy was identical to India’s policy of constitutionally elevating Hindi and English. Jinnah did not go even that far and described in the proper constitutional manner Urdu as the state language not a national one. Urdu was to be - in the real sense of the word- a lingua franca for the diverse people of Pakistan.

The problem with Amar Jaleel – who recently appeared on Vussatullah’s show on Dawn News Urdu Service- is that in his zeal for an otherwise good cause, he liberally twists the facts. For example in the show in question he declared amongst other things – as obiter dicta – that Gandhi had fasted in his last days to have wheat exported to Pakistan. Frankly I don’t know where he got this from. In reality however Pakistan connection in Gandhi’s fast was purported to be vis a vis Indian government’s refusal to give Pakistan its share of the treasury. However what was hilarious was his claim that Jinnah was cornered by people to make this statement.

Amar Jaleel’s cause is righteous. All Pakistani languages must be equally respected and given an equal status in the republic as languages of the people of Pakistan. However should he murder history and discredit himself by repeating this lie or does he believe that the longer it goes unnoticed, it might one day be taken up as the truth?

I have always felt that the writers of the Urdu press are given to exaggeration and embellishment, even if they are not right-wingers and pro-Jamaat-e-Islami fanatics but even self styled champions of leftists, liberals and ethno-nationalists. In this respect at least one hopes that Dawn News Urdu Service will bring some balance to the force.