Defence budget increased by Rs105b

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Pakistan Should do more in WOT

But wait DO MORE means more expenses in mobilization of Army, taking care of Supplies and hardware maintenance.

War is costly , even a person who has no soft corner for the military will believe in economics law of supply and demand. (supplies are expensive and war is demanding)

 

[Hutchroy]

Drained by defence?

The debilitating cost of fighting a war within our own borders has been graphically highlighted, a cost not only in defence expenditure but in the cost to other budgets that have to be raided to cover the fighting of the insurgency. In the last fiscal year the development budget, always the first port-of-call for the robbers needing the soft targets of health and education, was reduced by about Rs146 billion – which is a lot of development that is now never going to happen. By contrast, defence-related expenditure had been budgeted at Rs343 billion but ballooned to Rs403 billion as a direct result of military operations in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the tribal areas. It is impossible to ignore the impact – now as well as in the long term – that the internal war we fight is having on our development as a nation. We are in a bind. Either we refuse to pour further funds into fighting a fight that is nowadays as much ours as anybody else’s; or we are accused by our allies and benefactors, the Americans, of not doing enough, of failing to go the extra yard; and thus we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Poor as we are, it still costs trillions of rupees to run Pakistan every year. Government expenditures in the 2009-10 fiscal year were Rs2.92 trillion, set against an income from all sources of Rs2.16 trillion. Simple mathematics tells us that the gap between the two is Rs763 billion. Then we have to consider the necklace of albatrosses, those birds of ill fortune that decorates the national neck. There are eight state-owned institutions, most notably PIA, WAPDA and the Steel Mills, which are losing around Rs400 billion annually. Cut loose the deadly birds or take the action necessary to turn them around (still not impossible even at this late juncture) and the deficit comes down to a more manageable Rs363 billion. We will not be holding our breath while we wait for this to happen. These grim figures were revealed by Adviser to the Prime Minister on Finance Dr Abdul Hafeez Sheikh and Finance Secretary Salman Siddique who were briefing the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Finance last week. The sting in the tail came from the finance secretary who emphasised that the revenue collection target for the next fiscal was set at Rs1.7 trillion – impossible to achieve without the introduction of VAT from July 1. The increase in defence expenditure is but a part of the picture. We need to lose a flock of albatrosses and impose a swinging new tax — but, as MNA Abdul Rashid Godil said hitting a very large nail on the head as he did; what there really needs to be is a tax on agricultural income, specifically the large landowners. Once again, we will not be holding our breath.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There are eight state-owned institutions, most notably PIA, WAPDA and the Steel Mills, which are losing around Rs400 billion annually.

So between those State owned entities we are losing the equivalent of the entire defence budget annually ....

I think the fact that the increase in the defence budget is necessary, given the terrorist threat in Pakistan, is recognized by most, even if grudgingly, but what is obvious from the above statistic is that development expenditure can be shored up through other resources and through better utilization of existing resources - so this choice of 'defence or development', as it is being painted, is not really a true one or the sole one.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No, the political class has been the forever ready punching bag. Even in the times of totalitarian rules, the political class was the punching bag for the people.

While the political class has been the 'punching bag', for many valid reasons, it is not true that it has been the only 'punching bag'. Commentators critical of the military and military rule have always existed in Pakistan.

I have always argued that the media in Pakistan is the most introspective and self-critical in South Asia, especially on issues related to the military, perhaps because of the tragic events of 1971 and the military's role in it, and because of repeated military interventions.

That said, the military has also enjoyed, for the most part, approval ratings far higher than the political class because it has so often attempted to perform at two jobs, and when it does get around to doing its constitutional job it does it relatively well, whereas the politicians only have one job, and have historically flopped at it just as bad as the military has.

 

[Durran3]

That said, the military has also enjoyed, for the most part, approval ratings far higher than the political class because it has so often attempted to perform at two jobs, and when it does get around to doing its constitutional job it does it relatively well, whereas the politicians only have one job, and have historically flopped at it just as bad as the military has.

The Military never gave the political class enough time to ever build a solid national assembly in the first place. If you intend to filter out the bad politicians and let the good politicians come you need to have a mature national assembly which can only come from a consistent process of electing civilian prime minsters after every political tenure. Gradually over time new candidates come and people have new choices and slowly but steadily your democratic institutions become stronger and more efficient.

The Military on the other hand has done an excellent job of disrupting that process and taking Pakistan back to Phase one every time it comes into power giving those politicians who need to be filtered out another chance and thus the cycle of bullshit continues. Eight to ten years is not enough for your democratic institutions to become strong.

Sure there is no doubt that the military has handled civil administration more efficiently than the political class because the military in general is a much more disciplined organization but if you allow the civilian government and give it enough time gradually over the years it will do a much better job and will be much better for the country in the long run. The military just needs to let the civilian government do its job, let it mature over fifteen to twenty years and stop interfering in places it doesn't need to.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Military never gave the political class enough time to ever build a solid national assembly in the first place. If you intend to filter out the bad politicians and let the good politicians come you need to have a mature national assembly which can only come from a consistent process of electing civilian prime minsters after every political tenure. Gradually over time new candidates come and people have new choices and slowly but steadily your democratic institutions become stronger and more efficient.

The Military on the other hand has done an excellent job of disrupting that process and taking Pakistan back to Phase one every time it comes into power giving those politicians who need to be filtered out another chance and thus the cycle of bullshit continues. Eight to ten years is not enough for your democratic institutions to become strong.

Sure there is no doubt that the military has handled civil administration more efficiently than the political class because the military in general is a much more disciplined organization but if you allow the civilian government and give it enough time gradually over the years it will do a much better job and will be much better for the country in the long run. The military just needs to let the civilian government do its job, let it mature over fifteen to twenty years and stop interfering in places it doesn't need to.

No argument over that, but I am just pointing out that the political class deserves the criticism it gets for the most part because it has done poorly at its job of governance when it is in power - whether the military has allowed the political system to mature or not does not take away from the fact that many in the political class when they come to power have acted in bad faith, and engaged in corruption and mismanagement, as have many in the military when in power.

And both the military and the political class have been criticized in the Pakistani media, the political class alone is not the 'sole punching bag'. Its just that the Army can rebuild its image when it goes back to the barracks, while the political class still has to actually deliver on governance.

 

[TaimiKhan]

The Military never gave the political class enough time to ever build a solid national assembly in the first place. If you intend to filter out the bad politicians and let the good politicians come you need to have a mature national assembly which can only come from a consistent process of electing civilian prime minsters after every political tenure. Gradually over time new candidates come and people have new choices and slowly but steadily your democratic institutions become stronger and more efficient.

The Military on the other hand has done an excellent job of disrupting that process and taking Pakistan back to Phase one every time it comes into power giving those politicians who need to be filtered out another chance and thus the cycle of bullshit continues. Eight to ten years is not enough for your democratic institutions to become strong.

Sure there is no doubt that the military has handled civil administration more efficiently than the political class because the military in general is a much more disciplined organization but if you allow the civilian government and give it enough time gradually over the years it will do a much better job and will be much better for the country in the long run. The military just needs to let the civilian government do its job, let it mature over fifteen to twenty years and stop interfering in places it doesn't need to.

Brother don't mind, its fine with criticizing the military as its not their job to run a country, but the blame is not squarely on the military, the oligarchs yes not politicians, but our oligarchs are more responsible for letting the military in with their stupid governance.

Take example of this govt, they have peoples mandate, and there is no military, what has been their performance so far ?? Same old people there, those who have been replaced have been replaced with their sons, daughters, cousins and what not. This game will continue on till the day our own political parties don't become democratic. They are being run by family dynasties, PML-N was Sharifs, PPP by Bhuttos, JUI-F by Mulla Diesel, before that his dad, JUI gets a chief and stays for a decade or more, ANP by the Walis etc etc etc.

So even if there is no army again in future, till we have these oligarchs, we will have no progress nor any stability nor we will get any good leader. Today we have Zardari, tomorrow we will have Bilawal, today we have Sharifs, tomorrow we will be having their sons.

If these oligarchs run the country properly, no one will let the military come, but unfortunately these same oligarchs make a mess and then run to the GHQ and bang their doors for help.

Solely blaming the army isn't justified, majority of these oligarchs, rather nearly all of them have sided with the same military at one time or another when it is in their own interest.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Well there is talk of these 8 useless giants who suck up 400Billion of our budget.

Just to take into perspective, the SBP last year earned a profit after tax of around 250+Billion, NBP earned more then 15+Billion just last year, so just imagine, if these white elephants become useful, how much they can support our economy in the long run as these extra funds can be used in education or anywhere else.

 

[sparklingway]

Brother don't mind, its fine with criticizing the military as its not their job to run a country, but the blame is not squarely on the military, the oligarchs yes not politicians, but our oligarchs are more responsible for letting the military in with their stupid governance.

Nobody solely blames the military but the coup of 1958 was not b/c the system of governance was failing (which it was) but b/c of personal greed and hunger for more power.

Ayub wrote down his "framework" for governance in 1954. The US in a document in 1956 "suggested" Ayub as an alternative. Ayub was the single biggest driving force behind becoming an ally after Liaquat's death (whose son blames entirely the military for his death). Pakstan's first populist leader, Hussain Shaheed Suharwardy was thrown out of power by the joint collaboration of the establishment of oligarchs and the military.

We were supposed to have our first national elections in '58, thwarted by the alliance of Mirza-Ayub which was created by the bureaucracy to create a superordinate-subordinate relationship with the military. The 1950s does not represent a failure of the political class, rather the alliance of non-elected public officials (military and bureaucracy) to thwart attempts to rule the people. Ayub is absolved all the time for his crimes but it is he who lay the stones of this cancer that spread throughout the country. He was also the first one to come in power and rise within the state infrastructure earlier based on US support.

The failure of the people of Pakistan to exert their will and the failure of the then political class is an entirely different story and it would not be wrong to say that it is the story of the usurpation of our political structure by those who never supported the creation of Pakistan directly, the politicians of the Unionist party from Punjab. After the death of Liaquat, they rose within the ranks and these people grasped the reigns of power b/c most of them saw that their due right to rule had been usurped by invading "mohajirs". It seems wrong to many to suggest that this might be true, but it was a persistent feeling among the politicians of Punjab back then.

The military has sought to absolve itself of its crimes by trying to rewrite history. It cannot be absolved of the crime of denying the people of Pakistan the right to rule. Military juntas cannot be justified for never were they the result of a sudden collapse of governance rather they were always they result of malafide intentions to grab power.

Democracy does not flourish with cosmetic changes to a social structure that is averse to democracy. If we truly seek a democratic system then we need a culture that supports it bottoms up. Political leaders are never born if there are bans on student unions and student unions become militarized only b/c they do not have capable leaders rather they have thugs who command them. A democratic structure demands that from the very first grades of formal education, our classrooms involve teaching democracy. Elections inside the classroom are vital. An example of how our culture is averse to democracy is that the "class monitor" is "selected" by the teacher for sucking up to him/her, TC and being shareef while scoring the best grades rather than being elected by the class for his/her caliber. If we have class and school elections across the country from grade 1 up, by the time people reach university they would be able to lead student unions rather than the thug student union we have today. It's a culture of democracy and until our notions of bloodlines and inherited izzat continues, we will remain a third world country that suffers from chronic martial laws.

While the political class can only be taught lessons by the people, which I believe it is starting to learn, the military can learn and correct itself only if it chooses to. Opportunism, adventurism and self-righteousnes cripple the higher echelons of power in the military structure.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I have no idea from where you have gotten this figure, but a 2 year old serving Lieutenant gets a gross salary of 30,000/- that also when in the hard area, meaning Kashmir or Siachen area. This figure includes all the hard area allowances and stuff. In normal postings, th figure is further reduced.

In PMA a cadet hardly gets a 6-7000 amount that also after getting all the cuts, and whatever is left goes to the canteen bills and other stuff.

And nowadays, even students get 20-30K mobiles, from their own savings, from money given by parents, contributions by siblings.

Mobile is not the standard to check how much someone earns.

Do remember, in military, all cadets are not the sons of some poor man, good number of them come from good family backgrounds, meaning families which can support their sons during their time in PMA and then army also.

sir gi ye pay to tab ki he jb 1O5 ya 1O6 ke long course chal rai the. Abi recently basic pay 10000 ke kareeb thi jo kat kata ke 9518 ke kareeb milti thi.Jb pori fauj ki pay double hoi to ye rola para tha ke PMA walo ki pay double nai ho gi, Leking bad me un ki pay bi double ho gai. Aur ab unki pay 21000 he jo kat kata ke 19000-20000 tak milti he. Just checked these figures from a friend in PMA :
Rest i agree with you wholey that mobiles are not the standard at all.But certainly have come within reach..

My own brother, even though has spent 2 years in the army, and all the tenure in hard area, has hardly a single penny in saving, as half his salary goes into his bills, as they have to pay for their food bill while serving, rest whatever left, he is spending on his uniforms, boots and other life related stuff.

I know Mess bills cost hugely.
Exactly i fully agree with you that many in army cant save much due to various necessary charges.But now time is changing. Though i have seen those times too when a Brigadier didnt had enough money to pay for Electricity Bills.Hell even an SD-Uniforms costs 10000 or more as ranks improve

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Not required, as my point of view is, that we have people who love to open anything related to defence or its budget, but there is nothing concrete to be seen about other sections of the budget and their efficiency and productivity.

Reason being, we love to kick defence budget and armed forces arse, while neglecting others.

So my point is if people love to kick armed forces arse, then they should also
discuss other points of the budget.

Personally hate it when people indulge in such pathetic stuff and come up with a twisted POV that " People are suffering and defence budget is increasing "

Pakistan is country which faces hostilities from its ambitious neighbour India + after going Nuclear many other hostile forces showed up. So inorder for appropriate Defence you need this much funding. Havent been for this Outstanding defence we all would have ended up like Palestinians/Iraqis instead of debating over this forum. PPl should realize how defence matters, But yet it appears that they always love and dont miss an opertunity to Bash Army not knowing its the only institution which not only bears the burden of Defence but also the Desaster Manajement.

 

[Hyde]

so we have a total budget of around 14 trillion+ rupees out of which 448 billion rupees will be allocated to Defense meaning around 3.2%~ of total budget will be spent on the defense sector.

I think that is ok - thats 5.298 billion dollars of today's rate (84.56) + we have Uncle Sam's allocated military support funds etc.

I guess below 4% of military budget is good enough for our country's stability and the economy

 

[sparklingway]

Since 2004, pensions were excluded from the Defence budget and shown under Cabinet division budget to make the increase look smaller than it actually is. Moreover, actual spending exceeds allocations by an average of one fifth as I pointed out earlier.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Since 2004, pensions were excluded from the Defence budget and shown under Cabinet division budget to make the increase look smaller than it actually is. Moreover, actual spending exceeds allocations by an average of one fifth as I pointed out earlier.

IIRC, pensions are also excluded from the Indian defence budget, so this is not an accounting practice limited to Pakistan alone.

 

[sparklingway]

IIRC, pensions are also excluded from the Indian defence budget, so this is not an accounting practice limited to Pakistan alone.

I didn't claim it was not a widely practiced worldwide, rather it was the first time in our country and still the rest of the ministries are forced to include their departmental pensions in their budget. Why were other ministries not asked to do so? I guess I've made my point.