What's new

Tanks guarding a ‘jhuggi’

The Pakistani Civil Service continues to be extremely competitive and attracts the top talent in the country (along with the military). Selection is extremely tough and largely on merit - what happens to their careers afterward is once more a function of the interests of the political elite.

So a 'hoarding of talent' is not the issue either.

I don't disagree that Pakistan has a good civil service. But hoarding of talent is an issue - All else being equal, Pakistan and India should have similar selectivity rates. But the civil service selectivity rate for Pakistan is about 2%, while in India it is 0.3% (according to wikipedia).

Another way of looking at it is by comparing Engineering education. In Pakistan the best colleges have Army people in the administration and are not really independent. So a lot of talent that would have been used for economy gets send to Army. In India, IITs and RECs (the best govt. engineering schools) all are independent and hence the students are used for economic development (ignoring brain drain) than military. In India, selectivity rates for IIT's are about 0.5%. I think this indicates that a career in Engineering is a viable way out for the poor into middle-class. Is there any independent college in Pakistan with similar selectivity ?
 
Well the exact point of the counter argument is that Pakistan's case is not one the extremes where the tanks are guarding the jhuggis regardless of what is claimed by the writer of the letter...however perceptions stick and such is the case with this issue. Pakistan suffers more, not at the hand of the military and its financial appetite as it is quite often claimed, rather due to the whims and fancies of the landed aristocracy of Pakistan. Two of the most populated provinces have vast majorities of their rural population living under the yolk of this class and they have no way out. This is what is holding Pakistan's lower class from moving up into the middle class ranks and beyond.

I absolutely agree to this. But what I am saying is that people don't vote for parties that promise a way out of this mess as long as tensions with India, Afghanistan and Taliban are the first thing on their mind. Military serves as an escape valve and hence their interest in keeping things the same.
 
Pakistan’s Defence Budget: Misplaced Priorities

It is popularly believed that while most states have an army, Pakistan army has a state. This was evident with the defence budget kept beyond the purview of the National Assembly over the past many years ever since the Indo Pakistan war in 1965. The army expected the state to support it without any questions on its profligacy.

Thus it was a notable occasion when, Pakistan’s defence expenditure estimates were presented under major heads in the National Assembly this year. The Prime Minister Mr Gillani announced, “The Ministry of Defence and chief of Army Staff have fully endorsed the revised format of the defence budget estimates.” He indicated that the expenditure had to be sustained as the country could not “afford to remain oblivious to our defence needs. As a matter of policy, I declare that our defence is based on the strategy of minimum credible deterrence and that we shall not enter into any arms race.”

What was perhaps unstated was that neither Pakistan nor India can afford to enter into an arms race with large percentage of the populations living below the poverty line. Thus this is more of an imposed rather than a strategic choice.

Pakistan’s defence budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year starting 1 July was raised by 7.6 percent – from Rs (Pakistan) 275 billion in 2007-08 to Rs 296.07 billion ($4.4 billion). The increase was claimed to be negligible, due to 10.4 percent inflation, increase in fuel prices and 20 percent increase in pay and allowances. The budgetary allocation of the services for 2008-09 was broken down in seven categories: employee-related expenses; operating expenses; travel and transportation; general; physical assets; other stores and stocks; and civil works. Of Rs 296 billion, a major portion of Rs 294.9 billion have been allocated to military defence and Rs 1.17 billion to defence administration. Of military defence allocation, Rs 99 billion will be spent on employees’ related expenses. The operating expenses will be Rs 82.84 billion and the cost of physical assets Rs 87.63 billion. The army will spend Rs 25.73 billion on civil works.

A report in the Daily Times has given the break down in the defence budget thus, “allocations for the Pakistan Army have increased by 4.31 percent as compared to last year with a grant of Rs 128.699 billion. Of this amount, Rs 71.274 billion has been allocated for employee-related expenses, Rs 22.337 billion for operating expenses and Rs 21.527 for physical assets and other stores and stocks. The budgetary allocation for the Air Force has increased by 5.93 percent in 2008-09 with Rs 71.006 billion, as compared to Rs 67.028 billion allocation in 2007-08”.

The Navy saw the highest increase in allocations by 14.16 percent with a total grant of Rs 29.133 billion, as compared to Rs 25.518 billion in 2007-08. Defence Production Establishment also received a similar boost of 14.48 percent to be allotted an amount of Rs 66.467 billion, Rs 40.129 billion been allocated for operating expenses and Rs 36.342 billion for general expenses.

Major General [Retired] Shujaat Ali Khan writing in the Daily Times justifies the increase in the defence budget on the plea that there is widespread disparity in superiority of 2:1 in land forces and 4:1 in naval and air forces between India and Pakistan. Indian estimates on the other hand do not indicate such a clear superiority. While suggesting that the country cannot afford to go in for an arms race with New Delhi, he feels Pakistan should opt for relative, “balance between nuclear and conventional forces”. This alone will prevent India gaining an advantage which will lure it into military confrontation perceiving weakness in Pakistan says Shujaat.

Pakistan is spending 4.5 percent of the GDP on defence. For a developing country defence spending over and above 3 percent is considered to impinge on development. The Prime Minister, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani attempted to turn the Defence Budget into an Indo Pakistan issue by seeking similar reduction from India. Thus speaking in the National Assembly, Gilani promised to freeze allotments for defence and even talked of reduction while hoping, “We hope to see a reciprocal gesture from our neighbor for the sake of peace and prosperity in the region.”

India’s Defence Minister Mr AK Antony reacted, “India’s defence budget — with an annual allocation of less than 2 per cent of the GDP — is amongst the lowest in the world. Despite our economic boom, our expenditure is less than 2 per cent of the GDP”. The Defence Minister’s assertion is also evident from a survey of the figures where in Indian defence spending, as percentage of GDP, has declined from 3.38 per cent in 1987-88 to 1.98 per cent in 2007-08. Thus the Pakistani establishment may find it difficult to justify defence expenditure vis a vis India, particularly so when the country is spending 4.5 percent of the GDP on defence in a year of decelerating economic growth, increased political instability and rising inflation.

Greater transparency in defence budget of Pakistan is welcome. What has however not been factored in is the large tranche of loans and military aid that the country has been receiving form the US as well as the strategic agreement it has for supply of defence equipment and technology particularly missiles from China. This is providing it additional resources for military development. The US largesse though partly paid for by Pakistan was evident with four F 16 aircraft delivered to the Pakistan Air Force during the month. Given that the bigger challenge before the Pakistan armed forces today is internal and not that from India these weapon systems would prove of limited utility.

There are also many accusations by the General Accounting Office in the United States that some of the funds allotted for countering militancy have been scarcely utilized for this purpose by the Pakistan Army. With the military today facing a major challenge of a long and protracted counter militancy campaign in the NWFP and Waziristan proportionate allotment of resources for procurement of assets such as bullet proof vehicles and personal kits may be in order. Given that the budget does not indicate such allotments, the capability of the armed forces in this sphere remains an unknown factor.

Or is it as many suspect the Army is not ready and prepared for counter militancy. With reports of the North West Frontier Province and Waziristan falling into the hands of the Taliban including possibly the capital Peshawar, it is time that the Pakistan army shifts its priorities from the East to the West. For if it does not do so, there is a real threat of the militants slicing off the areas close to the Durand.

PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN.

So Pakistans defence budget takes up (4.4x100/33 =) ~13.3% of the Federal budget
 
Last edited:
Is this true?
Not anymore than the Abu Ghuraib abuses, or the rape and subsequent murder of an Iraqi minor girl and her family forced to witness the rape define your Army.

Regurgitating the same links a million times will not make it the truth.

Please respond to the questions already posed.

Thanks.
 
Luoshan,

Thanks for the correction on the 3 percent figure being wit respect to GDP and not the budget .

However, at a GDP estimated at approximately 160 billion, a 4.4 billion defence budget works out to be about 2.7% - 3.0% (depending upon the exchange rate).
 
A.M.

Regardless of whether an Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo are able to fade into our past as we address them through our laws and system before your eyes, you ignore that beyond the torture and murders on the surface is the larger question of institutional control.

I ask a question too about landlords in Pakistan for a reason, no? I don't care how many farmers you tortured so much as the incentives to do so. From where do those arise?

As I understand matters, land holdings are only a portion of a yet even larger portfolio of interests. Are the oversight bylaws and financial accounting requirements of these military-controlled entities adequate to track earnings from such? The military farms in Punjab for example- can you trace annual earnings at these facilities?

I'll happily now backtrack and see what wtf and you are discussing. I wanted to answer this as I'm not looking at all the symptoms of problems such as torture. Our problems at Abu Ghraib point in different directions than the problems indicated here and the backdrop therein.

I hope that you recognize that.

Thanks.
 
An explanation of how strong defense stops economic growth.
I'll use an example: Assume only 2 parties. One of them promises higher security and winning Kashmir while the other promises economic development. Military puts Kashmir in the news more often than economy and hence on top of people's priority list. Hence people pick party 1, putting economy on priority 2. Even if military did not directly involve itself in the economy, indirectly it affects it.
It can be seen much clearly in Bangladesh where the easiest way to win votes was to find a border skirmish and claim the ruling party of being friendly with India irrespective of what they were doing good.
wtf - that is a hypothetical example that assumes the political parties did not offer development, and got votes based on 'we will get Kashmir' rhetoric.

This is in fact a common misconception promoted by Indians. While Kashmir remains an issue that no political party can offer unilateral concessions on (as it is in India), the political parties spend the majority of their time promising development, jobs, school progress.

Bhutto and the PPP's 'Roti, Kapra aur Makaan' (Bread, clothes and shelter) slogan is an example of that. Whether Kashmir is in the news or not, people have always demanded the government provide them with the necessities - Musharraf was not initially popular because of Kargil, he was popular because of his domestic policies and the economic growth and development he was perceived as bringing about.

And about military being for normalization -- Musharraf was an aberration it the recent history of Pakistan. He was a pragmatist while in power. But also note how he came to power - started a fight with India in Kargil, accused the government of being soft on India and took over the country. A textbook example of why Army uses tensions with India to grab power back home.
Not true - Ayub Khan attempted the same.

Your example of tensions with India being used to grab power in the case of Kargil is nothing but conspiracy theory speculation. Musharraf had no idea how Sharif woudl react during the conflict or after, and it was Sharif's actions (pre and post Kargil) that resulted in the coup.
 
A.M.

Regardless of whether an Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo are able to fade into our past as we address them through our laws and system before your eyes, you ignore that beyond the torture and murders on the surface is the larger question of institutional control.
As is the Okara farms system being addressed through the mechanisms in Pakistani law.

"However, a handout from the Inter Service Public Relations says that a meeting between representatives of the military and the tenants was held in Okara in the presence of District Coordination Officer Syed Zafar Bokhari, wherein it was decided that the tenants would pay their contract money before harvesting the crop. It was also decided that they (the villagers) would not be deprived of their land if they continued fulfilling their commitment to pay contract money regularly. It was also decided that the army would assist the tenants in acquiring alternative government land in lieu of the land they had currently."
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

I ask a question too about landlords in Pakistan for a reason, no? I don't care how many farmers you tortured so much as the incentives to do so. From where do those arise?
One farmer recorded graphic testimony alleging he was tortured by one officer - that does not equate institutional complicity unless you want to take the handful of cases of excesses by US forces as indicative of the US Army pursuing rape and murder of children as an institutional policy.

As I understand matters, land holdings are only a portion of a yet even larger portfolio of interests. Are the oversight bylaws and financial accounting requirements of these military-controlled entities adequate to track earnings from such? The military farms in Punjab for example- can you trace annual earnings at these facilities?
Enigma has outlined this elsewhere.

All military holdings are acquired after government approval, legally and taxed and audited.
 
I'm from okara, For the last 15 years, officials from the government, go out to the farmers and ask them if they need financial assistance, if they require so the government will provide farmers with a loan, with a really really low interest rate.

The government is willing to help every farmer with financial assistance.
 
The defence budget for 2009 was 3.3% of the total budget, lets say it averaged 5-6% over the last decade or so.
I havn't read the entire thread. So pardon me, if someone has already pointed out a tiny error.

The defence budget for 2008-2009 (I don't have 2009-2010 fig) was Pak Rs 296 bill while the total Budgeted outlay was Pak Rs 2010 bill. That makes the defence budget slightly less than 15% of the total budgeted expenditure.

Source (pdf):
http://www.finance.gov.pk/admin/images/budget/budgetbrief.pdf

What you are probably referring to, is percentage of defence budget as compared to GDP.

PS: India's total budgeted outlay for the same period was INR 7,508.853 bill and defence budget was INR 1,057 bill, making it about 14% of the total budgeted outlay.

It appears, both the countries are spending way too much on defence. Sad but true.

EDIT: OOPS...someone already has - 2007-2008 figures though.
 
Well, I see four types of people who criticize Army
1) People who genuinely don't want to see Army in Politics (Normally Democracy supporter which is right)
2) People who are just jealous that Army has setup excellent institution.The only united institution ever in history of Pakistan and want to loot more money from budget (Usually The Politicians).
3) Indians who want Pakistan to become like Palestine so they hit it and make it their sattelite state.
4)Americans who are worried cause their forces are getting their ***** kicked by Taliban and recently fought an illegitimate war in Iraq and now want to draw all attention to Pakistan Army for the failures of US Army and CIA.
I'd say Indians well fall in 3 category where as people like S-2 fall in 4 category.The guy don't even know where Pakistan Army is stationed and make his own observations from his rear.I would say ban this sob.All he does is rant.
 
zarqa javed is an elite who is speaking just like NAJAM SETHI....NAJAM sethi is the director of DAILYTIMES...im sure she is a spoilt girl from islamabad who meets and bumps into najam sethi the BIGGEST traitor of Pakistan in parties....him..this lady and AYESHA SIDDIQUI....are biggest traitors of pakistan always reporting against army and Pakistan....Najam had a bad time during Musharraf's era...and INDIA always supported his point of view...daily times is funded by outside people .. and imtiaz alam is also one of those f*cks funded by india .. he supports PPP and zardari and he is also a ghaddarr..so is this woman and so on....


a question i ask is if pakistan was not sees as a threat to the world then why so much attention given to it....and i can assure you the only reason india didn't attack in 2002 or in 2008 december is because of our ARMY & NUCLEAR detterant....so whoever tells me army and nuclear deterrant are not necessary....then he rather say it stright to my face that PAKISTAN is not necessary....

fine the elite of the army and political circles are corrupt...but the poor army soldier still keeps a watch on the COLD moutain of SIACHEN....so that you and i can sleep or have the luxury to sit here and debate such things....:tsk::tsk:
 
That would be the logical conclusion anywhere. At least in Pakistan, in the officer corps, I would say at least 95% join out of conviction to serve or due to the fact that they like the lifestyle. On the side of ranks, economic well being could definitely be a major factor however the same cannot be assumed for the entire Army.

Lets also keep in mind that the military of Pakistan employs less than 1% of the workforce. So its not really a huge workplace alternate for many. Those who have an interest join, otherwise life goes on in the private industry or in the civilian government side.

pakistan has a population of 160 million...and half-a-million strong army...the ration of the entire population to the people employed in the army comes out to be 260:1....our ration comes out to be...811:1...
and this ratio has been more or less static since the PA's inception...
i guess after agriculture...the army is the biggest employer in Pakistan...that might be a strong reason for it being a called a 'state within a state'....but the counter-argument to that would be the case of the indian railways....which happens to be the world's largest employer...employing more than 1.5 million people...more than the strength of the armed forces...the railways have absolutely no overt political powers...or are in anyway powerful enough to formulate or modify the country's policies...
 
S2....i ask you 3 questions....where is the DOPE MAFIA...(a.k.a US MARINES).....what has the US military achieved in 8 years in IRAQ,AFGHANISTAN...and let's also not forget the defeat in vietnam..and yet the US keeps pouring billions in stealth fighter projects...hell i say the US army should be disbanded....
 
Back
Top Bottom