Sinha’s defence

When the issue of defence spending is shot through with so much false sentiment, public discussion of the pros and cons becomes difficult....

When the issue of defence spending is shot through with so much false sentiment, public discussion of the pros and cons becomes difficult. But neither the defence services nor national security are benefited by the avoidance of hard questions. So it is just as well that Yashwant Sinha got the ball rolling, so to speak, shortly after boasting about the “largest ever” hike in the defence budget.

Assailed on all sides for the high fiscal deficit, he told an audience of businessmen the next morning that the additional defence allocation raised the deficit by 0.6 per cent. This brings the subject of defence spending into the realm of hard reality where choices have to be made, where an extra Rs 13,000 crore on defence means that much less for other sectors and costs and consequences for the economy as a whole. Additional defence spending must be justified in hard terms, mere sentiment will not do. At this stage when defence forces restructuring has not gone very far, a very high proportion of the defence budget goes on salaries, pensions and maintenance leaving an inadequate amount for the high technology equipment that the army, air force and navy are increasingly demanding.

Armies all over the world have been modernising, cutting down manpower, raising skills and incorporating more and more sophisticated technology. That process has been slow in India. It must be assumed therefore that part of the additional Rs 13,000 crore is required for equipment to meet post-Kargil defence plans, high-tech surveillance and other equipment to secure the LoC such as the unmanned aerial vehicles recommended by the Subrahmanyam committee. Air operations proved crucial in the Kargil operations and the air force too has plans to enhance force levels.

Story continues below this ad

In meeting essential defence needs, the inefficiencies and weak spots in defence procurement which have been identified often enough should be removed. The waste in defence purchases as a result of poor planning should be avoided.

Is this a one-time massive hike or does it indicate a new higher level of defence spending which India cannot afford? The unprecedented increase in the defence budget is worrisome because it goes against a long trend of declining or standstill defence expenditure. It has been a deliberate matter of policy to try and contain defence expenditures in order to leave more resources for social sectors such as education and health. If anything has changed in the non-defence sector in the last decade of structural adjustment and economic reform it is the squeeze on resources for the social sectors and the sharp decline in capital formation. But even before the balance could be re- stored has come pressure since 1998 to increase spending on defence, first on a nuclear weapons programme and after Kargil on conventional weapons.

No estimates were made in the draft nuclear doctrine document of the sums required for proposed land, sea and airborne nuclear forces and a command, control and communications infrastructure but they will be colossal.

Meanwhile, official pronouncements suggest the security environment has worsened after Kargil and that implies high levels of conventional weapons spending in future years. Runaway defence expenditures are not what this country needs.