The great historian, Paul Kennedy, in his best-seller book, ‘The rise and fall of Great Powers’, writes: “Wealth is usually needed to underpin military power, and military power is usually needed to acquire and protect wealth.

If however, too large a proportion of the state’s resources is diverted from wealth creation and allocated instead to military purposes, then this is likely to lead to a weakening of national power over the long-term.”

This article analyzes the relationship between Pakistan’s defence spending and its economic and human development. The table below shows that there is a trade-off between the two - excessive defence spending has come at the expense of human and economic development. The “cold-war” between India and Pakistan is costing Pakistan a lot more in terms of development and progress than India. World average spending on defence has been 3 per cent of GDP (economy). India’s annual defence spending, over the last 50 years, has averaged about 2.5 per cent of GDP, whereas Pakistan’s annual military spending during the last 50 years has averaged about 6 per cent of GDP.

Countries that are considered powerful and strong in the world today (United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and China) spend less than 10 per cent of their budgets on the military, on average. Thus, what constitutes strength is not what percentage of the budget is spent on the military but how large is the size of the economy.

The most important inputs to the economic growth of a country are an educated and healthy work force, physical infrastructure such as farm to market roads, telecommunications, dams, etc., and high savings and investment rates of the people and the government. However, if funds are diverted from these productive factors to defence, the economy fails to grow at a reasonable rate (as we have seen in the case of Pakistan) leaving the country weak and vulnerable.

Countries that have traditionally spent a very higher percentage of the budget on defence are Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Syria, Somalia, Angola, Pakistan and the former Soviet Union. Looking at the poor economic and social situation of these countries today (three of these have broken down) one can conclude that the notion that spending more on defence enhances the security of a country is flawed. Excessive defence spending at the expense of economic progress and prosperity leaves people deprived and frustrated, resulting in ethnic and social unrest and the blame game where ethnic groups blame each other for the economic mess. People in such countries have no stake in the society or the system resulting in the eventual break up of the country.

If we analyze the US-Soviet Union “cold-war” with the Indo-Pakistan “cold-war” we see many similarities. India’s economy, population and land are 7-8 times that of Pakistan. Yet we have been trying for the past 54 years to match India’s might. Similarly the former Soviet Union’s economy was one-third that of the United States, but it tried to match the US might. The Soviet people were deprived of even the basic necessities such as clean air, drinking water, education, food and job opportunities in the name of national security. As a result of excessive military spending, the former Soviet Union, like Pakistan, had to borrow heavily to meet its expenses, and fell in the debt trap. Finally, the economy collapsed under the pressure of excessive debt and defence spending and the Soviet Union broke up in many pieces. The largest army of the world with its 30,000 nuclear bombs could not save the country from breaking up.

If we wish to see the benefits of reduction in defence spending we can see China as an example. During the 1980s the size of the Chinese army was reduced by 40% (about 2 million military personnel were let go). Chinese defence spending was reduced from 15 per cent of the budget in the early 1980s to 8 per cent by 1989, and has been kept at about the same levels since then. The proportion of China’s defence-industrial output destined for the civilian market increased from 7 per cent in 1975 to about 75 per cent at present. And all this despite China having the former Soviet Union and India as neighbours, both countries hostile to China at the time.

Pakistan’s defence spending has averaged 6 per cent per year over the last 54 years. The excess defence spending of 3 per cent per year adds up to 162 per cent of GDP (54 years * 3 per cent) or about $100 billion. Pakistan’s total debt is around $60 billion and we are paying Rs300 billion per year in debt servicing. Had we spent prudently on military, Pakistan would have a manageable debt today of say $30 billion and could have afford to spent an extra $70 billion on its people.

Imagine the difference it would have made to the quality of life of Pakistanis. Excessive defence spending of $100 billion amounts to $5000 or Rs 300,000 per family. Considering that 90 per cent of Pakistani families are living at less than Rs36,000 per year income, Rs 300,000 is equal to 8 years of income of an average Pakistan family. The output to show for this sacrifice is that Pakistan has lost half of its body, it is in no position to fight a conventional war with India, and Kashmir issue is no closer to being resolved than it was 50 years ago. Pakistan is ranked 135th of 170 countries by the United Nations based on human development indicators.

In a United Nation’s report Dr. Mahbob Ul Haq pinpointed three countries in the world that had the ability and the potential to achieve economic development but failed to do so. These countries are Nigeria, Brazil and Pakistan. This is what the report says on Pakistan: “There is a serious imbalance between military spending and social expenditures. Pakistan spends a very small part of its budget on the social sector- and a large and growing part on the military, preempting scarce resources that could of otherwise be earmarked for education and health.”

An extensive study conducted by renowned international economists, Deger and Sen, on India and Pakistan, using sophisticated statistical techniques, concludes: “For India .. with a relatively low defence burden, the adverse effects do not bite, particularly because the industrial and investment base itself is very large. For Pakistan the case is potentially different; a much larger defence burden superimposed on a smaller investment base can have detrimental effects.’’

In conclusion, excessive military spending, as in the case of Pakistan, diminishes and not increases national security. Our political and military leadership has repeatedly acknowledged that the Kashmir issue can only be resolved through peaceful means. There is no point then in spending 40 per cent of the government revenues on defence. Pakistan is not the only country in the world that has a land dispute with another country.

Russia and Japan has a 60-year old land dispute over certain islands. China’s land dispute over Hong Kong and Taiwan is well known. England and Spain have a land dispute over Gibraltar. Turkey has a land dispute with Greece. India and China have a land dispute, and there are dozens of other such cases. Yet these countries have sacrificed their economic and human development by diverting huge sums to defence. To stop our country from further deterioration and disintegration we need to do the same. We need to understand that our supreme national interest is in making ourselves internally strong.

The Pakistani people and the economy have been taxed to death without any benefit of this heavy taxation going to the common man. We need to realize that unless we significantly cut our defence spending no progress can be made to address the core issues facing Pakistan such as poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and economic stagnation. India wants us to continue this “arms-race” as this will ultimately result in our economic collapse, bankruptcy and possibly further break down. We should avoid falling further in this trap before it is too late.