Enhancing the defence capability through cost effectiveness

Columnist SULTAN AHMED talks about economy of scale contributing to increased effectivness in defence

K. Subrahmanyam, India's leading defence strategist, tells the Indians earnestly the best way to win a war is without fighting it. That way, he says, is to raise India's defence spending to 3 per cent of the GDP from the current 2.3 per cent which will make Pakistan spend far more on defence and go bust in the process.

He is not alone in advocating that approach. Several other Indian defence experts and commentators on defence and foreign policy are advocating the same line in a period in which a major war has become terribly unfashionable. They believe if Pakistan, which now spends 4.8 per cent of its GDP on defence, having come down from 7 and 7.2 per cent in the late 1980s, spends far more on defence to match India's proposed augmented defence spending, it will have an economic collapse and suffer political disintegration.

Subrahmanyam, and others who toe his line, have the US-Soviet arms race as their model for the sub-continent. As the arms race between the super-powers increased, and the vastly expanding nuclear arsenal and the inter-continental ballistic missiles were climaxing in preparation for the star wars, the Soviet Union realised it could not just afford such a suicidal arms race. The Soviet economy could not spare the vast funds needed for the star wars. Moscow also sensed on star wars that even if it invested hundreds of billions roubles it might not have provided effective defence against US missiles floating in space. Hence its retaliatory move was abandoned. Anyway in the process of spending excessively on defence for both external and internal reasons, the economy imploded, the USSR collapsed in 1991 and 15 independent republics were born.

India is larger and far more resourceful than Pakistan. Its defence spending this year is 10.8 billion dollars after a rise in expenditure of 11 per cent over the preceding year within a total budget outlay of 67 billion dollars.

Compared to that Pakistan's defence spending this year is Rs. 142 billion, Rs. 3 billion below the budget last year, but Rs. 14 billion above last year's actual expenditure. At our exchange rate the defence spending of Pakistan comes to 2.6 billion dollars vis-a-vis India's 10.6 billion dollars.

While India may be able to raise its defence budget to 3 per cent of the GDP, that may make it impossible to reach the targeted budget deficit of 4 per cent of the GDP. It can spend far more if it is determined to do that in the post-Kargil period as it is not under any IMF programme, unlike Pakistan. But Pakistan may find it too tough even to raise the defence outlay to 3 billion dollars now. Then of course. the IMF and the World Bank are there to dissuade US and they and other donors have been urging us to reduce our defence outlay for long.

The protagonists of war without war want India to move away from the trajectory of 'The Fourth Round - India-Pak War,' the book by Ravi Rikhye. Although the fourth wound of war in South Asia did not come to pass in 1984, as he feared, he wrote: 'The next Indo-Pakistan war is likely to be longer, more intense, more costly and more brutal than any earlier one, with the exception of the 1947-48 limited war which holds the record for duration.'

He wrote the book before India and Pakistan had their series of nuclear explosions in May 1998 which demonstrated their military potential and the development of long range missiles by both sides which further augmented their offence strength.

What is notable is that despite their nuclear weapons and missiles they have not reduced their large standing armies. In fact, India is proposing to spend more, more so to strengthen the India-Pakistan border and make it more impregnable so that they could not be more Kargil - like surprises on its borders with Pakistan.

Of course, the right solution to the problem is solving the Kashmir issue in accordance with the UN resolutions and the will of the people of Kashmir, who have been conducting a relentless campaign against Indian occupation for the last ten years together and have so far lost about 70,000 lives. But India prefers to hold onto Kashmir saying that is an integral part of India and its breakaway could result in more states breaking away from it.

India has followed its nuclear explosions of 1998 with an ambitious Nuclear Doctrine. It is stated to be discussion paper and not final official policy. And yet the direction in which India seeks to move is clear. Pakistan has hence to be on guard, more so when the capacity of the Indian leaders to restrain themselves when they have enhanced defence capability is limited. Pakistanis find it hard to forget the bluster of India's rightist leaders and Hindu fundamentalists following their nuclear explosions which forced Pakistan to match them with their own nuclear explosions on the heels of the India's.

Pakistan leaders have from time to time suggested reduction in the size of the Armed Forces of the two countries. Indian leaders have shown scant interest in such moves and argued their defence spending is far less than Pakistan's in terms of GNP. And if the money they spend is far more than Pakistan that was because they had a far larger area and a longer coastline to defend.

Inder Kumar Gujral as prime minister of India in 1997 urged Pakistan to agree to mutual defence cuts. He said the two countries had fought three wars since 1947 and they should reduce their defence expenditure as a first step towards promoting better ties in the region.

He said if strong Armed Forces could ensure security the Soviet Union would not have collapsed, at a conference on 'Partition in Retrospect'.

He said that before the Indian nuclear explosions, the Kargil conflict and the ambitious nuclear doctrine of India and demands for higher military spending. In addition India is negotiating large arms manufacturing deals with the Russia, which includes nuclear submarines, advanced tanks, and fighter aircraft. Now India talks of entering the arms export market in a big way and has arms manufacturing deals with Israel as well for less expensive weapons.

Pakistan has now some tough options in the defence area. Following the earlier heavy defence spending to a large extent, the national debt has shotup to Rs. 3,000 billion. Debt servicing has now risen to Rs. 287.4 billion dollars. Interest payments on domestic debt alone is Rs 160.4 billion and on foreign debt Rs. 42.4 billion, making total of Rs. 203 billion.

Defence and debt servicing at Rs. 429.4 billion exceed the tax revenues of Rs. 356 billion, and exceeds the total federal revenues of Rs. 561 billion by just Rs. 132 billion, but then a large share of the federal revenues has to be given to the provinces, which makes it necessary for the government to depend a great deal on foreign and domestic loans and currency note printing.

Hence our capacity to spend far more on defence is sorely limited. In fact, it is very difficult to maintain even the present level of defence spending without vast improvement in revenues. To overcome the problem suggestions have been made for a truly national army, complete with conscription or compulsory military service.

That being a recurrent suggestion since the 1940s. But the rulers have turned down the suggestion for a variety of reasons. They argued giving military training to millions would be too costly. Secondly if India did the same in response to Pakistan's moves it would have a far larger reserve and that would make Pakistan's gains small. But the principal reason could well be that political leaders with small popular support did not want a large army of well trained people from among the masses and regarded that as a potential threat to them. Their enthusiasm, if any, wanted after the Rawalpindi conspiracy of 1951. Which was the least expected then. So the continued preference for the professional army. In the earlier years compulsory training would have also meant imparting that training to East Pakistanis which some political leaders and many generals might not have liked.

The fear of a major war between India and Pakistan is receding since they became nuclear powers, although the Kargil conflict seemed to drift towards a larger war on the plains. Secondly, after the two countries became nuclear the prospects of the world's powers intervening to stop even a conventional war between them is great. If either side used the nuclear weapons not only two countries would be destroyed but also many in the neighbourhood and even far off countries could be enveloped by the nuclear games.

And when it comes to the size of the nuclear arsenal it is not necessary that each country should have a very large one. Both can do serious damage to each other with the use of a few nuclear bombs carried by missiles and delivered effectively.

In such a situation it is imperative for Pakistan to make the most effective and cost effective use of its defence outlay. The cost effectiveness of Pakistani forces is said to be not very high. And Gen. Musharraf has promised to eliminate waste in the Armed Forces and make the defence spending rational.

More money should be spent on enhancing the firepower of the Armed Forces and less on the personnel serving the fighters and their officers. There is need for gradual elimination of the large number of 'batmen' who serve the officers not only when they are in service but also after their retirement.

The Armed Forces have to become more functional and less ceremonial. The forces modelled on the British pattern need less ceremonies to impress the people than the British colonial army in the sub-continent. What we have now is not a colonial army but a national state army, in fact the army of an ideological state in which they are expected to be the soldiers of Islam as well.

Gen. Musharraf is in favour of economy in defence spending and getting the most out of what is spent on the forces. He wants the army to help the country increases its revenues so that the share of the defence forces in the total expenditure could come down.

Gen. Musharraf says the economy has collapsed and wants to give top priority to industrial revival. The industries are the back bone of national defence.

If they do not provide the armaments the Armed Forces need or their components our defences will be weak vis-a-vis India with its large industrial base. Our steel industry has to become larger and stronger and so also other industries producing metals like aluminium and other alloys.

Our nuclear capacity or the nuclear balance in the sub-continent has given us an opportunity to have a balanced and rational approach to defence as a whole and make the necessary economy in every aspect of that. Cost effectiveness should now become a predominant concern of the forces so that we can get a better return for every rupee spent on the forces and a far more effective defence capability.