Yes we are in catch 22 aren't we, in my understanding slow economic growth is the biggest security threat that we are facing right now. 20 years from now if we keep lagging the way we are, there will be so much disparity between our two states that either we will accept their hegemony or reduce our self to a North Korea type of militaristic state to survive. So on that account, as I said earlier, your proposition sounds logical.
But now wargame what you are proposing. Suppose we reduce our defense budget by half for next 2 decades, this will mean our already lagging air force will not even have sufficient funds to pursue the JF-17 project to its logical end (Block 3 and beyond), so they will be flying legacy planes for next two decades and will not remain an effective fighting force. Ok with the increased investment in education and infrastructure we start seeing a better growth rate in 5-7 years from now.
With a blatant nuclear first use policy there would be no need to maintain a conventional effective fighting force.
But then there is a major terrorist attack in India, false flag but through their good offices with important capitals they make the world believe that LET or JM is responsible. They launch an airstrike on Lahore, our airforce is in no position to fight back so they go unpunished. Now taking your suggestion, we launch a low-yield nuclear strike against their airbases, what do you think will be international response to that. Low-yield or not, it will be a nuclear strike, the whole wide world would slap sanctions on us in a minute. What will become of our economic growth then? In best case scenario we will become another Cuba and worst case another North Korea.
As soon as there is a false flag attack, India will try to build a narrative. Their propaganda machine would be on full blast trying to paint Pak in a bad light and justifying an attack on Pak. This means India wouldn't attack right away. During that time that India will build its own narrative, Pak can build a counter narrative. For example if it's a false flag attack and Pak gets accused by India...Pak can put India on full blast at the UN and offer an investigation by a third party neutral agency like Interpol with full cooperation of Pak. Extending this olive branch while at the same time reminding the world and India what would be the immediate result of any misadventures.
So there needs to be a balance between the two, security leads to better economic growth and economic growth provides more funds for security. It is not like we are spending some astronomical percentage of our GDP on our defense, its about 3.4 percent of GDP, Israel spends more than 5 percent of its GDP on defense. Our biggest problem is tax collection, we need to improve it on war footings so that government has more revenue to spend on education, social welfare and infrastructure.
On defense, Pak spends about 4% of the GDP I think. Israel's comparison here shouldn't apply bcuz Israel gets a ton of aid from the US(military and economic) on top of its own economy. Besides just the aid there's other forms of help that keeps their economy churning...for example the US buys a huge chunk of bullets from Israel even though the US with its huge industrial economy is fully capable of meeting its own needs of bullets. Pak has no such help.
Tax collection is indeed a problem and there needs to be a fix for that. But if u think that would fix some major economic problems right away then I disagree. A majority of Pak population ranges from middle class to poor. Taxing them heavily would be a disaster. It would ruin ppl's lives who are already struggling and there would be major unrest. If somehow it all goes smoothly and u r able to collect tax from the middle class to poor that's still peanuts when compared to the defense budget.
In order to have stable and constant tax revenue, the government would have to close the wealth inequality. If I have to pay tax on $100...5 percent of a $100 is $5...whereas if I have a million dollars and I have to pay 5 percent on that then it comes out to $50,000. So the real revenue would come from taxing the rich and businesses. In Pak's case there's an enormous wealth gap...there's the rich and then the rest of the 90% of population. If u try to get a fair tax system going by having a tiered tax bracket based on wealth in order to not burden the middle class to poor families and trying to close the wealth gap then the rich get upset bcuz they don't wanna pay higher tax percentage compared to others. Let's leave aside the fact that these elites have a huge influence and let's assume the government tries to get them to pay fair taxes...there's nothing that would keep them from just leaving the country with their wealth...the same applies to businesses. As a developing economy Pak is somewhat forced to allow businesses a bunch of tax breaks here and there to make it appealing for businesses to come to Pak or stay here...as opposed to going to other countries like China, India, Bangladesh, etc. This shuts out or greatly reduces the possibility of Pak taxing any businesses heavily...the rich elites either have their assets/money abroad or can shift it abroad if u try to tax them heavily. This just leaves the rest of the average ppl that make up the majority of the population.
No doubt that the tax system needs reforms and the tax net needs to be widened but it is going to be a tricky/lengthy process that is going to take a while to yield a constant flow of income for the state.
As for the sanctions u mentioned...so here are the current options
Stay this path as u r suggesting...
- The gap between India/Pak economy keeps increasing in India's favor
Switch gears and think long term gains by doing what I suggested...
1) If no sanctions
- Initial slow down/halt in Pak's conventional capability but a rapid increase in economic capacity which will eventually allow Pak to build up a massive conventional capability.
2) If sanctions bcuz of the scenario u mentioned
- Pak would not become another North Korea nor Cuba bcuz of inherently different circumstances. Pak can grow enough food to meet domestic demands.
- Pak can utilize CPEC to generate income in case no country wants to do business with Pak in the face of sanctions. China is spending billions on it and wouldn't just stop using that route bcuz of sanctions. China's trade volume is huge...Pak can tax all the goods moving through
- Even in the face of sanctions Pak can continue to get whatever it needs from China at least covertly bcuz China needs Pak to balance India. Despite all of North Korea's shenanigans, China still keeps it afloat just to have South Korea and Japan in check...so at the very least it will do that for Pak as well.
- During sanctions Pak can trade/do business with other countries also under sanction...namely Iran in this case. Iran can fulfill Pak's oil and natural gas needs
- Sanctions aren't permanent. They can be lifted through negotiations.
Iran would be a perfect example to compare in this case. Iran did just fine domestically under severe sanctions. It's ppl are doing well, they are educated, there's better tax net, less wealth gap, etc. The moment sanctions are lifted from Iran it would be able to spend billions to procure weapons from Russia/China...and the west if they r willing to sell to Iran.
In conclusion, my point is to never back down and accept diktat from others. At the current pace, India would become a regional power soon putting Pak at risk of having to accept its hegemony. In comparison, Pak can assert itself now with an aggressive nuclear stance and focus on its economy so that it can keep up in this arm's race with India. This other scenario definitely has a threat of sanctions...but again I would say never accept diktat from others and allow ur sovereignty to be compromised. Even under sanctions Pak would have options.
