SOUND ECONOMY WITH A STRONG FORCE -1

Wing Commander (Retd) MUHAMMAD IRSHAD
wins the DYNAVIS prize for best essay with his
presentation on why the stregnth of the economy
constitutes a strong force

Born out of a peaceful political process, the predominant feature of the Pakistan's history has been its conflicts with India, which waged three full scale wars against us. In the first, they occupied the best part of Kashmir, and in the last, managed to break Pakistan into two pieces. They took advantage whenever we were politically or militarily weak, and there is no reason that they would not do the same in future. Sharing our thousand miles long eastern border, the Indian Army is more than twice the size of Pakistan, an air fleet that is thrice as big, and Naval power that is even more extensive. Apart from being the third largest importer of arms, India's indigenous capabilities, it is worth remembering includes tanks, aircrafts, guided missiles, armoured vehicles, sophisticated warships (frigates, patrol craft, destroyers etc.), The Hindustan Aeronautics has a dozen factories, and Bharat Electronics has more than 50 weapon research laboratories, manned by over 4000 people, all working full time to add to her arsenal. To top it all, she has recently deployed nuclear missiles on our borders, and the venom-emitting BJP has formed government in the centre. The summary of Indian thought can be well imagined in the words of their ex PM Indira Ghandi's statement in a public meeting on 31st Nov. 1970 i.e.; India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan. Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistani nation has no right to exist*1

With such hostile military strength and intentions at our borders, choices available to Pakistan are limited. Obviously the priority has to be given to the preservation of our sovereignty. The methodology could be debated but the un-debated fact would be the requirements of a sound economy.

A slight peep into our economic scenario would tell us that the situation, if not hopeless, is simply deplorable. All our major institutions like WAPDA, Railway, PIA etc. are in deep troubles and it is no wonder that country's frequent rescheduling requests to IMF are being bounced back with more and more stringent conditions. The existing state of economy is not healthy enough to sustain the burden of our present forces, let alone the idea of increasing troops. To live honourably with defiant posture for opponents, Pakistan has to have strong force and sound economy. These two are inter-dependent. Whereas strong force depends on sound economy, sound economy was never made dependent upon strong force. The purpose of this paper is to plead exactly the same. Sound economy can be achieved with strong force.

Fortunately similar solution are available in our contemporary history with probably Switzerland and China as the best examples. Both have dual role armies, which in peace time help in building the nation, and at the same time are ready to counter any threats to national security. As for the nation building role, for example, Switzerland is politically stable and economically rich country, but the political, religious linguist and topographical structure imposes the utmost decentralization. Therefore, army is being used as a vital instrument of education, and an inexhaustible fount of information, idealism, patriotism and moral comfort, while at the same time combating the evil influences which seek to poison and enfeeble Switzerland's will to survive as an independent and sovereign country*2.

China emerged as a country with strong ideology, huge resources of manpower, very high aspirations but poor economy. So the army, in addition to above roles, became instrument of economic rehabilitation e.g. the primary function of production- construction corps is to undertake large-scale labour intensive projects, assigned by Beijing and regional authorities. Such projects include land reclamation, road building, defence, construction, afforestation, mining, water conservancy, and the running of some industrial plants and state farms.*3

Pakistan emerged with a strong ideology and a high degree of will to survive, both of which have been rather corroded with the passage of time.

Our history is certainly not a good example of nation building, and obviously, we have ended up with smaller size and bigger problems. The list of our existing problems could be written for any length. However besides the question of survival and inculcation of nationalist feelings, some which need immediate attention include:

a) Literacy ratio in Pakistan is too low, only 21% (With rural 19.2% and urban 46%)

c) Our 58% people are engaged in agrarian activities, but we are still not self sufficient in most agricultural produce.

d) Our 75% people live in villages but majority of them are not provided with basic amenities like water, electricity, roads, communications etc.

e) Our health services need improvement. We have one doctor for about 6000 persons, and one nurse for about 18000 people.

f) The role of women (45% of our population) needs a better and clear definition.

The list and priorities could, and should be subjected to regular adjustments, but a plausible solution of these problems should form the nation.

Our Armed forces have been involved in development roles in some manner. Shahrah-e-Rayshem is a very fine example. Such examples can also be seen in the shape of Army jawans helping during floods, air force planes dropping supplies when snow or natural calamities cut off the areas, Navy also showing her presence on all such occasions. The recent involvement of forces in census, road infrastructure of Lahore and identification of ghost schools in Punjab are some recent signs of faith. This role of our armed forces is good and appreciable, but the armed forces must also understand that it is just a drop in the ocean, which is being performed for country's and hence the armed forces' survival. Speaking economically, the country is sinking in quick sand and apparently no solution is in sight. The armed forces, as the most organised group in the country are probably the only instrument available which can and should accept the challenge, irrespective of how their role has to be redefined. They must transform themselves fully into a dual role army, meaning that the development work by forces be enhanced to a very large extent, on regular basis, involving a greater mass of people. The task of dual role armies varies from country to country depending upon the resources available and the national goals and aspirations, however, there is one common factor. The state and citizens are partners in national defence, not masters or servants. From early childhood everybody is trained in the belief that his country's independence is worth fighting for and worth dying for. With this ideology in mind, the exact nuts and bolts could always be adjusted, but broadly speaking:-

a) The standing army be converted to a nucleus of professional, citizens' army fulfilling most of the existing vacancies.

b) Citizens' army would mean a huge reservoir of manpower, which on rotation basis can be trained and effectively utilized for improvement of any weaker link considered for the betterment of the nation, like providing health and infrastructure to our 45000 villages, construction of motorways, roads and railway tracks in northern areas etc.

c) This work should also be an indispensable requisite for an active and meaningful life which men would be required to lead during their non-military periods.

It is time the defence forces rise to the occasion and take upon themselves the role of a dual role army. They must become an inexhaustible fount of information, idealism, patriotism and moral comfort. They must also be able to sustain all that is best in the nation, at the same time combating evil influences which seek to poison our will to survive as an independent ad sovereign country. It should also remain a main instrument of educational and economic uplift-for these are the basis of our national security. The civilian rulers will be too happy to agree to any such suggestion.

Since almost inception, defence forces of our country are like a Holy Cow. All actions behind the screen and no open discussion. This state may be considered comfortable but it can hardly be considered as Efficient. The defence services belong to the people, and are managed and administered by the government. To wage war is the responsibility of the govt. and in a modern context, the defence services play only the role of application of violence at the right time and place, under the overall policy of the govt. The building- up of the nation's armed forces is a continuous process in peace time. What this building- up means in terms of planning, training, logistic support, welfare and administration of the armed forces must be known to government. In a democracy, the government is of the people and therefore, people must be able to understand intelligently, the various implications involved and must directly or indirectly through their representatives, be able to scrutinise, comment upon and constructively criticise the defence effort.

At present our population has been made to feel that almost anything relating to the defence of his country is so secret that even to open his mouth on the subject is to breach some kind of security regulation. This is complete reversal of how things should be. Government should encourage national participation, and one method would be to issue an annual white paper on defence which should contain information regarding the technical and managerial aspect of defence, changes in organisation etc.; peacetime deployment of forces, the status and size of reserves, information on manpower and conditions of service. It should report new construction programs, fresh welfare schemes, research and development programs and tabulate the previous results even showing the main systems of weapons to be analysed. With such public scrutiny, a search light, however dim initially, will be focused on defence affairs. As a result the defence base will be placed on sound foundation and legislators will realise their responsibility in defence matters.

It is most likely that some quarters will not favour such an open display of plans and programmes. The plea will, of course, be one of the security and, needless to say, it has no validity except as a screen to shelter behind, so that everything may go on as before. There are few aspects of defence, which in a short time do not become public knowledge. Let us take some examples. Consider the building of a new airfield. Tenders are issued, land is acquired, labourers are employed, blue prints are made. Literally thousands of people directly or indirectly will have to know about the airfield, or in case new tanks or other weapons are brought from overseas. Irrespective of how secretly this may be done, the knowledge cannot be kept away from our likely enemies. So why hide it from our own people? In the present day society, whether in the west or the east, one can soon find out what has been written in the most confidential files. What is important is that basic operational plan of the armed forces is kept secret. This will bring surprise to many, and is the only thing where secrecy can or should be guaranteed.