New Delhi: In recent years, there has been a consistent similarity to the India defence budget. A minimal rise in the overall allocation, a falling share as a percentage of the GDP, rising revenue expenditure, and capital allocation that severely curtails modernization.
Although the Finance minister stated in her budget speech that "national security is the top priority of this government", there was a little reflection of this sentiment in putting down the money required for the military.
There are two viewpoints to consider. The first is that India already has the fourth-highest defence spending in the world. A country that spends less than 1 percent of its GDP on health and education combined, and is facing an economic slowdown, would have to be irrational to pour money into buying more Rafale jets, each of which cost about Rs 1,600 crore.
We are a country with 50 million people below the extreme poverty line surviving with Rs 4200 per month. According to a Mint report of December 2019, 30 million people fell below India’s official poverty line and joined the ranks of the poor over the past six years. In these conditions, should not poverty eradication be a priority over guns?
The other viewpoint is that the defence budget must be related to the security threats that a nation faces and the vision of its future place in the global order. South Asia is today among the most volatile regions in the world, with India facing a hostile neighbour to its west and a rising, assertive great power to its north. Both these rivalries will continue in the foreseeable future.
In the next decade, while Pakistan would be militarily easier to handle (although it continues to occupy an outsize space in our political narratives), China would be a serious concern. China’s defence budget at about $250 billion is currently about four times that of India, and this disparity is only going to increase in the coming years.
A European Commission study estimates that by 2030, Indian and Chinese military spending could rise to $213 billion and $736 billion respectively, a gap between the two countries of over $500 billion.
Read more:DeMo, flawed GST, squeeze on banks sent economy in tailspin: Chidambaram
China's rise is not going to be peaceful, and we already see signs of this. The United States and China are already locked into a trade and technology war that could transform the world order.
And India could be the swing state in this global competition. However, to become a major player on the world stage, India has to display its hard power and can no longer rely on soft power, which incidentally has taken somewhat of a beating in recent times.
How do we reconcile these two viewpoints? It is now evident that the military will have to live with stressed budgets. The first thing that strikes the eye is the high salary and pension figures, but pay cannot be cut beyond a point. If we want to attract the best talent into an enormously difficult profession, the service conditions have to be attractive.
The United States military spends approximately 40 percent of its budget on personnel payment and benefits. There is a similar issue with pensions. The nation must take care of soldiers who have served the country, often at the risk of their lives. And our pension figures are generally in line with militaries around the world.
The answer, therefore, lies in taking a hard look at the overall size and structure of the armed forces. After 40 years of service in the Army, it is my considered opinion that there is latitude for reducing our manpower. There is a certain amount of duplication among the three services in logistics, training, and even combat functions like air defence.
It is heartening to see that the new CDS is targeting these areas for reduction.
There is also scope for adopting a reservist model in some of the army units and this could lead to substantial savings in manpower. The Air Force and Navy must also relook at their ambitious plans to build up to a 44-squadron fighter fleet or a 200-ship navy.
With the rising costs of military platforms, these figures are simply unattainable. And this is not a problem that only India faces. The United States, with a budget of about $750 billion, has seen its navy shrink from 600 ships in 1987 to less than 300, and the air force from 70 active-duty fighter squadrons during Desert Storm to 32.
It could be argued that any reduction in size could lead to the weakening of our military. This is not necessarily the case. A well-equipped, leaner military could be more efficient than a larger one with outdated weapon systems.
Since 2015, China has reduced its armed forces by 3,00,000, and this has enhanced, not weakened, the battle-readiness of the PLA. The size of the defence budget generally invokes disappointment among the military. Still, it is also a call for the senior leadership to get serious about restructuring and reform. The size of the budget and the size of the military can no longer coexist.
( - Article by Lt Gen (Retd) D S Hooda. He led the surgical strike in 2016. Views expressed above are his own.)
