FAQs on India's Massive 34% Hike in Military Spending

[karan.1970]

Nobody is requesting you to defend anyone else's point of view. You are free to criticise GoI for increasing the defense expense. Nobody is stopping you from doing that.

If you are concerned about the bandwidth of this forum and you feel any post is offensive, just report it. The MODs will certainly delete the post and will ban the member. That way you will be able to save the bandwidth of this forum.

I am in support of GoI increasing our defense budget. For economic development of any country you need peace. So for peace we need a strong and modern armed force.

I guess you got him wrong. He wasn't criticizing defense spend. IMO, He was saying why should we prove to other how much we should spend on what.

ekdum sahi my friend.. As I said, our money and our citizens and we will decide what money to spend where.

NSG bhai.. we are absolutely on the same page...

Lets just ignore this baseless topic

 

[RPK]

GoI not yet released the budget for this year(APR10 to MAR11) I don't how it is calculated here.

 

[yuba]

i for one think we need to increase our budget even more we have been sleeping for to long while china has been modernizing its armed forces

 

[fanboi]

Narad and ek_Indian banned for a week for doing exactly what I said not to do. There are some others who insist on doing them same whose posts I did delete but did not ban due to seniority.

Shape up now, all of you.

This is a discussion forum -- Pakistanis can raise critical points about India's defence spending. Many Indians have done the same about Pakistan's defence spending, especially when the 34% hike was first announced, and I took pains to research the Pakistani budget and post the figures that debunked the '8%' nonsense.

To counter those numbers some Indians came up with the 'Pakistan defence budget does not include retirement and welfare', to which I posted analysis by Indian authors pointing out that the Indian defence budget did not include retirement either.

I expect the Indians to behave in a similar fashion - refute Haq's points factually or ignore the thread. Any more nonsense along the lines of 'Pakistan is jealous' will result in permanent bans.

To Haq:

I personally do not see the relevance, in this thread, of discussing the opportunity cost of military spending vs development spending. I do not think your post on how India treats its minorities is relevant, and will only hijack the thread.

I appreciate the research you have done on the numbers here, and I think it is important since it is a good argument against the criticism of the Pakistani defence budget, as I mentioned above.

With all due respect, Haqs main argument is that somehow the poor are oppressed through India's defense spending. With that in mind, I wish you could have deleted his posts before I spent quite some of my time writing my reply.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

With all due respect, Haqs main argument is that somehow the poor are oppressed through India's defense spending. With that in mind, I wish you could have deleted his posts before I spent quite some of my time writing my reply.

I might have had time to actually do that yesterday had I not been deleting useless posts with images, and personal attacks.

I don't have a lot of time to devote to the forum currently and all I did was do the above moderation, post a warning and leave.

I read through the rest of the thread a little more today and pointed out to Haq why I thought that particular line of discussion should be kept off this thread.

The argument on the opportunity cost of military vs development spending, especially keeping in mind legitimate military/security concerns, is a valid argument, but it really needs its own thread, and a heavily moderated one at that.

 

[ironman]

But those refer to overall foreign assistance/loans/grants for the Pakistani budget, whereas Haq was pointing specifically to the defence budget, where the approximately $1 billion figure comes from the reimbursements under Coalition Support Funds (CSF) from the US.

One could argue that money is fungible, and that money received by the GoP for other purposes can still be directed into the Defence budget, but then that would still reflect an increase in the defence budget outlay, and we would see it reflected in the numbers.

For example if the defence budget is typically $4 billion, and $1.5 billion additionally comes in under CSF etc, then your budget outlay is $5.5 billion total. If the GoP gets another $3 billion in foreign funding (loans, grants whatever) and you argue that the money is being diverted into the defence budget, then the defence budget should reflect that increase and be above the $5.5 billion amount.

Even if you argue that the money is being diverted into 'secret strategic programs' you would have to see some sort of a decrease elsewhere in the budget, since most of the money pumped in from IFI's tends to be for specific projects and programs that have been carefully vetted.

Only about $1.5 billion of the total US aid out of about $10 billion in aid, loan write-offs, and reimbursements was a vague 'budgetary support' type of aid (i.e the US just gave the money to the GoP and did not care how it was spent).

Please read page 19, 20,21... and calculate total defence spending and total allocation...

http://finance.gov.pk/admin/images/budget/Budget%20in%20Brief%202009-10.pdf

 

[saurabh]

@Haq

Your point is that India is spending way lot money on defence when it should be directed towards poor/hungry/uneducated. (coincidentally, all three belong to same category!)

Now, we Indians, as well as GOI differ to you.
We all say that already a lot of money is being spent for the poor.
You say its not enough. Again, we disagree.
So now its up to you to prove that we are wrong. The GOI is wrong, not enough is spent. Can you prove that GOI is spending "less" than what it can "efficiently" utilize?

In one of the your post,

This is not my statement, it came from a senior member of India's planning commission.

New Delhi, July 2 (IANS) India is worse than Bangladesh and Pakistan when it comes to nourishment and is showing little improvement in the area despite big money being spent on it, says Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed.

'There has been an enormous infusion of funds. But the National Family Health Survey gives a different story on malnourishment in the country. We don't know, something is just not clicking,' Hameed said.

Hameed said the government's Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) programme, which is a flagship programme to improve the health of women and children, had not shown results despite a lot of money being spent on it in the past few years.

The annual budget for women and child development (WCD) ministry in 2008-9 is Rs.72 billion. Of this, Rs.63 billion is for ICDS.

'India worse than Pakistan, Bangladesh on nourishment' ? Sulekha News

None of the Indians will deny that there is poverty, large number of poor. But we fail to understand your point that because of defence budget, poor are suffering. You would yourself admit that large chunk of the defence budget will go on salaries and pensions etc. That means that it is the amount going directly in hands of people, fulfilling the cause you are raising your voice for.

Have you studied India's budget completely? Do you know everything that is mentioned in it, everything that India spends money on is more important than defence budget?

The way you post make it seem to us that its just India bashing. You sound to us like saying India is spending money on defence at the expence of poor. This is something we don't agree to you. So it would be helpful if you provide figures that say that

a) Defence budget is the most wasteful way to spend money in India, GOI doesn't spends money on anything else which is more wasteful and can be stopped.

b) It is not spending enough money on poor. Whatever it is spending is perfectly/efficiently utilized and there is no scope that poverty eradication cannot be done without spending more money, that too, money from defense budget and no other source.


All Indians are worried about poverty, and more worried than you. We appreciate that you are caring for them, but your tone seems in the line that its not care. It seems to us that you are not motivated for the cause of poor, rather opposing rise of India's defense budget.

 

[Trisonics]

Ok ..I'm posting this again, Since AM deleted my previous post. I'll be more polite this time and I hope Mr Haq responds

this is what he says:

"
Q1: How much does India really spend on defense?

A1: On paper, India spends $30 billion, about 3% of its GDP on defense, after an increase of 34% for 2010.


In reality, India spends closer to 3.5% of its GDP on defense.
Here's what Col.(Retd) Pavan Nair of the Indian Army has to say about it in a recent guest post on Haq's Musings:

"

If you want me to believe what you have said, give me another source other than what Col. Nair has said. I would love to believe what he is saying but its not conclusive !!

Like in my previous post, I had posted this video where your former Chief of the Pakistan Air Force claims Pakistan has started all the wars! Now I can counter argue saying Pakistan is making us spend more and even add Mumbai and what not, but I'll stop just short of that unless you can prove what Col Nair has said.. if you can't,remove it! or accept what Asghar Khan is saying!
Thanks!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ok ..I'm posting this again, Since AM deleted my previous post. I'll be more polite this time and I hope Mr Haq responds

this is what he says:

"
Q1: How much does India really spend on defense?

A1: On paper, India spends $30 billion, about 3% of its GDP on defense, after an increase of 34% for 2010.


In reality, India spends closer to 3.5% of its GDP on defense.
Here's what Col.(Retd) Pavan Nair of the Indian Army has to say about it in a recent guest post on Haq's Musings:

"

If you want me to believe what you have said, give me another source other than what Col. Nair has said. I would love to believe what he is saying but its not conclusive !!

I thought he did point out how India spends more on defence - through the paramailitaries etc.

What does the following video have to do with validating the defence expenditure numbers?

Like in my previous post, I had posted this video where your former Chief of the Pakistan Air Force claims Pakistan has started all the wars! Now I can counter argue saying Pakistan is making us spend more and even add Mumbai and what not, but I'll stop just short of that unless you can prove what Col Nair has said.. if you can't,remove it! or accept what Asghar Khan is saying!
Thanks!
YouTube - Asghar Khan: India An Imagined Pak Enemy

Asghar Khan is entitled to his views - that does not automatically make them accurate however. I would claim (and have in other threads) that Pakistan can only be blamed for 1965 or 1971. In 1965 Pakistan tried to instigate a rebellion against Indian occupation and covert intervention in IAK, whereas the conventional war itself was started by India as a response to that attempted intervention.

In 1971 it was the reverse - India intervened in Pakistan and Pakistan 'officially' fired the first conventional shot in the war.

So if the argument of intervention in the others affairs is taken as a definition of 'start a war' then Pakistan can only be blamed for 1965 (and one could additionally argue that Kashmir is disputed, and not really Indian territory). On the other hand if you argue that the side that launched the first conventional, overt military attack is responsible, then India gets the blame for 1965 whereas Pakistan gets the blame for 1971.

There are a few threads on the subject of who started the wars. No need to go down that path on this thread.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Please read page 19, 20,21... and calculate total defence spending and total allocation...

http://finance.gov.pk/admin/images/budget/Budget%20in%20Brief%202009-10.pdf

What exactly are you pointing out? Could you copy-paste the relevant info and your explanation please?

 

[fanboi]

I thought he did point out how India spends more on defence - through the paramailitaries etc.

What does the following video have to do with validating the defence expenditure numbers?


Asghar Khan is entitled to his views - that does not automatically make them accurate however. I would claim (and have in other threads) that Pakistan can only be blamed for 1965 or 1971. In 1965 Pakistan tried to instigate a rebellion against Indian occupation and covert intervention in IAK, whereas the conventional war itself was started by India as a response to that attempted intervention.

In 1971 it was the reverse - India intervened in Pakistan and Pakistan 'officially' fired the first conventional shot in the war.

So if the argument of intervention in the others affairs is taken as a definition of 'start a war' then Pakistan can only be blamed for 1965 (and one could additionally argue that Kashmir is disputed, and not really Indian territory). On the other hand if you argue that the side that launched the first conventional, overt military attack is responsible, then India gets the blame for 1965 whereas Pakistan gets the blame for 1971.

There are a few threads on the subject of who started the wars. No need to go down that path on this thread.

Hold on a second, Pakistan is allowed to send troops into our territory to kill OUR soldiers and its not an act of war?

What's your definition of a declaration of war?

Pakistan has the international blame for all Indo-Pak wars, the Indian republic is recognised also internationally as to never have started a shooting battle.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hold on a second, Pakistan is allowed to send troops into our territory to kill OUR soldiers and its not an act of war?

What's your definition of a declaration of war?

Pakistan has the international blame for all Indo-Pak wars, the Indian republic is recognised also internationally as to never have started a shooting battle.

As I said, there are other threads on this issue.

And I would encourage you to start reading posts a bit more carefully. I thought I was quite clear in pointing out that 1965 and 1971 were in many ways mirror opposites. If you argue that the PA covertly intervening in Kashmir in 1965 was a declaration of war, then so was the IA's covert intervention in East Pakistan a declaration of war (sending troops and rebels to kill OUR soldiers) on Pakistan.

You cannot have it both ways, and hence my point that Asghar Khan's (and the international communities, if that is the case) views are incorrect.

 

[Trisonics]

I thought he did point out how India spends more on defence - through the paramailitaries etc.

His contention of "3.5%" is based on what Col Nair says and hence the need for another link to back the claim. In the other thread (on the same issues) I had posted links from the MOD websites which clearly indicated "pensions" being included. Mr Haq however, claims in his blog they are not.

What does the following video have to do with validating the defence expenditure numbers?

Asghar Khan is entitled to his views - that does not automatically make them accurate however.

The bolded part should give you answers, so similarly, Col's views are appreciated but how accurate are they? So should I or Can i conclusively use such cases as strong evidence? All I'm asking is some evidence that India is spending 3.5% of its GDP (Other than Col Nair's claim).

The 34% was explained by the defense minister. Also, remember all govt servants got a huge hike in salaries last year!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

His contention of "3.5%" is based on what Col Nair says and hence the need for another link to back the claim. In the other thread (on the same issues) I had posted links from the MOD websites which clearly indicated "pensions" being included. Mr Haq however, claims in his blog they are not.

I am not sure what the percantages work out to - I do know that the info should be available online and someone can perhaps do the additions and percentages work. I would but don't have the time currently.

I do agree with Haq that the Indian defence spending is larger than 3% when you take into account the expenditures on other military related items, how large I cannot say without doing the numbers, and so far am going with Nair's calculations.

On the subject of pensions, there are various other articles by Indians that do argue pensions are not included:

In its interim budget for 2009-10 the Union Government has allocated Rs. 1,41,703 crores for the country’ Defence Services that include three Armed Forces (i.e., the Army, the Navy and the Air Force), and other Departments, primarily Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Defence Ordnance Factories. This is apart from Rs. 24,960 crores which have been earmarked to defray civil expenditures of Ministry of Defence (MoD) and its affiliated organisations, including, the Coast Guard, and for defence pension (Rs. 21,790 crores). In other words, the total resource available for the MoD and its various establishments is Rs. 1,66,663 crores. By convention, only budgetary provisions for the Defence Services constitute India’s defence budget.
India?s Defence Budget 2009-10: An Assessment | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

The bolded part should give you answers, so similarly, Col's views are appreciated but how accurate are they? So should I or Can i conclusively use such cases as strong evidence? All I'm asking is some evidence that India is spending 3.5% of its GDP (Other than Col Nair's claim).

The 34% was explained by the defense minister. Also, remember all govt servants got a huge hike in salaries last year!

I still don't see what Asghar Khan's views have to do with refuting the defence budget numbers? You could take any number of erroneous statements by Pakistani commentators, but at the end of the day you still have to make your own case to validate or refute the Indian defence numbers provided by Nair.

You cannot just say that because Asghar Khan was wrong that means Nair is wrong.

 

[karan.1970]

I am not sure what the percantages work out to - I do know that the info should be available online and someone can perhaps do the additions and percentages work. I would but don't have the time currently.

I do agree with Haq that the Indian defence spending is larger than 3% when you take into account the expenditures on other military related items, how large I cannot say without doing the numbers, and so far am going with Nair's calculations.

On the subject of pensions, there are various other articles by Indians that do argue pensions are not included:




I still don't see what Asghar Khan's views have to do with refuting the defence budget numbers? You could take any number of erroneous statements by Pakistani commentators, but at the end of the day you still have to make your own case to validate or refute the Indian defence numbers provided by Nair.

You cannot just say that because Asghar Khan was wrong that means Nair is wrong.

btw.. what difference does it make whether its 3% or 3.5%. Its not that its an audit and GoI needs to prove the numbers. India is spending what it feels is right on defence and on other programs. I would actually turn it around and ask Mr Haq to prove the co relation of reduced defence spending to poverty upliftment. btw how about spending on culture, art, cricket, R&D etc.. whats their co relation with poverty reduction..By this logic no developing country should be spending even a penny on those.. isnt it??

What we are forgetting here is the national capacity to absorb programs. I would draw a parallel to efficiency enhancement programs in a corporation. Now there can be 100 projects that would improve efficiency and hence pay for themselves in the 1st year itself. That does not mean that a company will implement all those projects in the 1st year itself. Because there is an organizational capacity to absorb change. Same principals apply here. There is only so much you can do in terms of poverty erradication per annum. And I dont think availability of money is a hindering factor for India, specially with over $250 billion in foreign reserves..