NEWSLINKS
BUDGET 2000 LIVE!
BUDGET ON REDIFF
D&B BUDGET SPL
ECONOMIC SURVEY
RLY BUDGET
BUDGET: RUN-UP
BUDGET PROCESS
BUDGET HOTLINKS
Y2K BIZ FEATURES
INDIA & THE WTO
GOVT&ECONOMY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
COMMENTARY
CREDIT POLICY
BUDGET 1999-2000
USEFUL INFO
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

'That the people can live under an umbrella of security comes at a price'

BUDGET 2000

Lt Gen Satish Nambiar

As usual the defence forces of the country are looking to see whether the allocations made by the FM to the requirements of the defence forces would be adequate to enable them to meet the needs of national security.

This year's exercise has greater significance because of the Kargil conflict and the fact that the Indian armed forces found themselves wanting in terms of some essential items of equipment. As a consequence their operational effectiveness was considerably degraded and most importantly we suffered avoidable manpower casualties.

This, of course, is inexcusable in terms of responsibility and accountability of those who are responsible for running the affairs of the state. I understand that the allocation this year shows an increase of approximately Rs 130 billion from last year's allocation. This may look very significant in terms of figures but if one takes into account the fact that the revised estimates for 1999-2000 are apparently in the region of Rs 540 billion the actual increase is not Rs 130 billion, but only about Rs 40 billion.

This is not to suggest that the nation can afford to spare much more on defence but only to highlight the fact that the defence requirements can be pretty substantial.

In this particular case, in terms of percentage of GDP, I believe this works out to approximately .2 or .3 per cent increase which takes the allocation to 2.5 per cent of the GDP, which I would suggest for a nation of India's size, commitment and operational borders would appear rather inadequate. Even more so when there is a need to make up for almost a decade-and-half of neglect.

Every country has to decide for itself what its security interests are. In India's case, given its size, the fact that we have long operational borders, we have had almost a continuous state of war with Pakistan since Independence. We have fought a border war with China and we have been dealing with terrorists and insurgence in North East and for a period in the Punjab.

It is inevitable that adequate security measures need to be taken in order to ensure that the people of the country can pursue their lives under an umbrella of security. This comes at a price, and while I do not dispute that the condition of our poor and underprivileged need attention. I don't think that these can only be met by strangling the requirements of the defence forces. There are adequate resources to meet many of these requirements provided there is political will and proper governance.

I have been a salaried person myself, and am now drawing a pension. But I suppose, the finance minister would have taken all this into consideration when he decided to make us also share the burden, particularly if we are talking of the defence burden.

Personally, I would have liked to see an allocation which would have taken the defence budget to nearer 3 per cent of the GDP and I say this because there was a need to make up for neglect of the defence requirements over the last decade-and-a-half. Even so, I recognise and I am sure my former colleagues in the defence forces also do so that the country has limited resources and therefore, all the aspirations of the defence planners cannot be met fully.

Whether the present allocation would enable us to meet a Kargil like situation next year? I would only say that as usual the defence forces will need to prioritise their requirements and make do with whatever has been allotted. However, should we anticipate Kargil like situations next year, which we should, I think we will need to take up the finance minister on his assurance that should urgent requirements come up for defence, these will be met. The reason being that some essential requirements that were highlighted by the Kargil conflict cannot be overlooked or postponed.

I do not think that we should relate our Budget allocation to defence to what Pakistan does. In fact it may interest viewers to know that Pakistan's defence budget allocations as percentage of GDP is almost 6.5 to 7 per cent against India's allocations of little over 2 per cent in the last few years.

Our defence allocations should be based totally on our own perception of national security requirements in context of the security situation prevailing in the region and the internal security requirements within the country.

The immediate requirement of course is to make up the severe deficiencies that exist in all three branches of the armed forces because of the neglect of this requirement over the last 50 years.

Firstly, I must make it quite clear that the average person in the defence forces is basically concerned with his personal requirement and therefore, like the rest of the people in the country he is looking at the impact of the Budget in terms of how much additional taxes he would have to pay. How much is this going to affect the budget at home, his travel requirements and aspects like that.

The adequacy or otherwise of the defence allocations are primarily the domain of the planners at various levels within the armed forces, who are required to assess, analyse, forecast and arrange acquisition of weapons, stores, equipment and other requirements of the armed forces. To them, the present allocations, will in my judgement be quite inadequate in context of the security situation we are faced with on our borders and also in dealing with terrorists and insurgents in the country.

However, even these personnel are conscious that all their needs cannot be totally met given the resource constraints. Hence they will now be working on making the best use of the allocation now made and prioritising their requirements as best as they can.

While 29 per cent may look a very large share of the burden, it is a price we have to pay for the security of the country if we are to ensure that we can pursue our economic, social and other policies under an umbrella that gives us full protection. I think it may be appropriate to point out that this is the sort of percentage most countries like ours do in fact spend on the security of the country.

When we reach a stage where our economy is strong and powerful the same allocation would possibly look smaller in terms of overall percentage. We hope that we can reach that stage someday. But I do not think we should bluff ourselves into believing that we can reach this stage of a economic strength and power without addressing the needs of security.

To give an example, which may be also useful to others who have similar questions in mind let me give you the analogy of a light house at the entrance of a harbour in order to protect ships from being wrecked on rocky outcrop. It is impossible to quantify the real value of the light house when one tries to determine how many ships have been wrecked while entering the harbour. The fact that no ships have been wrecked is in fact an indication of the effectiveness of the lighthouse.

Similarly, if India's defence capability is such that it deters our potential adversaries from launching any adventures against us or from preventing war the defence allocation would have been worth it.

Lt Gen Satish Nambiar (retd) is Director of the United Services Institute.

Budget on Rediff | Dun & Bradstreet Budget Special | The Run-up
Budget Process | Budget Hotlinks | NDA Government & Economy
Ministry of Finance: Economic Survey 1999-2000 | Budget 2000 document

Tell us what you think of this Budget 2000 coverage