Defence expenditure

Defence expenditure has increasingly come under criticism in this country mainly because it has traditionally accounted for more than a quarter of our entire current budget allocation for decades. Inexplicably, the country's 167 million people are also allocated no more than a quarter of the budget under the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) that has typically not been a high priority of the Pakistani governments, past as well as present.
Massive cuts in the PSDP, whenever the budget deficit reaches unsustainable levels is yet another indicator of its low priority as far as our governments have been concerned - military as well as civilian. Inherent to allocations under the PSDP has been a singular lack of vision in terms of prioritising expenditure. Thus as the Musharraf government failed to invest appropriate amounts for the energy sector, the present government appears to be ignoring the water sector in terms of allocations in spite of the fact that numerous studies including a 2006 World Bank report reveal that Pakistan is fast moving from being a "water stressed country to a water scarce country". The issues are fairly well-known: high population growth rate, over-exploited groundwater that is polluted in many areas, and most of the water infrastructure (even some of the major barrages) in poor repair with the entire system of water management financially unsustainable. And yet large parts of Pakistan have good soil, sunshine and good output or, in other words, Pakistan can get much greater value from its existing water flows.
Defence accounted for 18 percent of the total budget 2011-12 however part of the defence budget is in the civilian budget, notably pensions of the armed personnel. The argument for this heavy outlay is age old: the country's sovereignty is critical and development or poverty alleviation must take a back seat to this objective. For good measure, India as the country touted by the establishment as violently opposed to Pakistan's existence is frequently cited as a continued threat and the raison d'etre for large defence budgets.
In this context, it is relevant to note that Pakistani officialdom - Foreign Office as well as the establishment - has not been effective in successfully persuading the world polity of Indian hegemonistic designs within the South Asian region in marked contrast to the Israeli government which, in spite of being the superpower in its region, has succeeded in projecting itself as the victim. In marked contrast to the establishment's view, statements by the PPP government, including the President, have highlighted the need to forge improved economic ties with India - sentiments that have been echoed to a large extent by the main opposition party PML (N). Be that as it may, the Indian response remains lukewarm to Pakistan's overtures and no forum comes to mind when the Indian government did not attack Pakistan for allegedly masterminding the Mumbai attacks (November 26, 2008) and called for Pakistan to end cross-border terrorism. While several politicians, including Rehman Malik, have alleged that India is supporting an insurgency in Balochistan, there has been no formal complaint lodged against the Indian government - either bilaterally or in an international forum.
However, what is indisputably a major issue for Pakistan is the fact that India is engaged in building dams on the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) in defiance of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960 brokered between the two countries by the World Bank. This is well-known to the US government as revealed by WikiLeaks. "Even if India and Pakistan could resolve the Baglihar and Kishanganga projects," wrote US Ambassador to New Delhi David Mulford in a confidential cable dated February 25, 2005, "there are several more hydroelectric dams planned for Indian Kashmir that might be questioned under the IWT." The American Ambassador noted that "Islamabad's worst case scenario (is) that India's dams in J&K (Jammu and Kashmir) have the potential to destroy the peace process or even to lead to war". War is not on Pakistan's agenda, however dire forecasts of a severe water shortage that would sound the death knell of the only viable sector in the economy, the farm sector, as well as lower electricity generation from our dams due to water shortage are being increasingly heard. To effectively deal with this issue the government needs to take a proactive approach with respect to proceeding against Indian violations of IWT well in time, or in other words not to wait for India to nearly complete the project before seeking arbitration, and to begin to construct dams on the western rivers (allowed under the IWT) as well as water reservoirs to deal with the impending water crisis.
The PML (N) as the party in opposition frequently criticizes the military. Former Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister, Sardar Mehtab Ahmed Khan belonging to PML (N), said during the budget debate in the National Assembly: "Pakistan's defence failures for some years have shaken the people of Pakistan. Pakistan's people are now compelled (to ask questions)". Ahsan Iqbal and a few back-benchers also criticised the role of the generals in politics since Ayub Khan seized power in 1958. Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar came out with only a brief ridicule of what he called Sardar Mehtab's "drum-beat" and politicisation of the situation and said the government would make every effort to strengthen the country's defence.
Nawaz Sharif in a recent interview stated that the objective of the party was to reform the institution: "we should take cognisance of these issues (including failures associated with the killing of Osama bin Laden by the Navy SEALS and attack on PNS Mehran). We should identify people who have been found to be irresponsible. I am performing a duty as well-wisher of the institution." In response, a press release referring to a June 9 corps commanders' conference noted "conceptual biases" that run down the armed forces.
The usual defence of the defence budget is as follow: the war on extremism and terrorism must continue and it is in Pakistan's national interest. This is certainly not in dispute however it maybe recalled that the operating expenses as noted in the budget documents are 128 billion rupees or 17 billion rupees more than the revised estimates of 2010-11. The remaining 34 billion rupee increase in the defence budget in comparison to the revised estimates of 2010-11 is not for physical assets (that amount remains more or less at 117 billion rupees) but on employee-related expenses, whose major component is salaries. Given that the salary of the civil servants was raised by 15 percent this year, over and above the 50 percent pay rise last year, a decision that clearly reflects the government's objective in terms of which subgroup it wants to keep on its side, it maybe argued that the employee-related expenses in the defence budget may consist solely of a pay rise.
The question that the public would legitimately ask is how many water reservoirs, as well as improved water infrastructures including barrage maintenance would have been possible if the government had desisted from announcing a raise in civil and military salaries estimated to cost the taxpayer over 50 billion rupees? Sacrifices, therefore, need to be made by the armed forces, sacrifices not only in terms of loss of lives while fighting the war on terror, but also sacrifices in terms of pay rise.
Had the present government succeeded in reining in the salary rise of both the civilian and military personnel, this government would have been in a better position to convince donors, bilateral as well as multilateral, that sacrifices are being made across-the-board to ensure that the people are provided relief in terms of taxes as well as in terms of higher allocation for PSDP. That alas does not seem the government's priority!