& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Beneath the Surface

Arms at Arm's Length!

by Abdul Bayes
***Security of the nation should sincerely and judiciously be hooked on to the security of the people. Investment in people provides much more dividends than that on arms.
Dollars spent on bullets are the dollars forgone for books.***
THERE was a time once when, prodigiously, gun was preferable to butter, pregnancy of such a preference lay very much in the paradigm of a national security having been priced more, than human security. (The prognosis was. however, rarely available or made available). The cold war that swept the world for decades shelved butter for the distant future and embraced guns for the moment. But now the reverse seems to hold: world wide, growing concerns about human security — very much a function of the availability of the amount of butter — and the surge in interest in human development seem to have dawned on the rulers of this time. Military expenditure is now on a decline all over the world, ipso facto.
But there is a region, called South Asia, that seems to militate against the prevailing norms of the world to this effect. The delicate balance between the demands of human security and of -national security throughout Asia" still appears to haunt the regfon. Needless to mention, perhaps, that the former- calls for an investment in people and the latter. in arms. Available information on military spendings suggest that this region spends $14 billion (excluding spending on alleged nuclear procurements) a year on the procurement of arms and for each doctor in this region, there are six soldiers. Despite foreign exchange constraints, the region is reported to spend twice as much as Saudi Arabia to have arms from outside at arm's
length,, although, the region s per capita income is 25 times lower than that of Saudi Arabia. And among the countries of the region. India and Pakistan together account for 93 per cent of the region's expenses.
In terms of per capita income. (in purchasing power profit or PPPS) India is ranked 142nd in the world but she tops the list of all countries in the world in terms of total arms imports. Pakistan, on the other hand, ranks 119th but 10th in
total imports. It is further reported tnat during 1987-94 period. world military spending declined by 37 per cent while in South Asia it increased by 12 per cent. "Both India and Pakistan enjoy the 'distraction' of belonging to that exclusive club which boasts the ten largest armies in the world. India is fourth in this league with a standing army of 1.3 million while Pakistaii is in eighth position with nearly 600.000 armed forces personnel."
But championship at what cost? Seemingly, at prohibitive costs. In Pakistan, for example, defence expenditure, according to available estimates, is ahead of that on education and health by a quarter. In India, defence
expenditure, swallows two-thirds as much resources deployed for education and health together. Again, for the last few years. Pakistan has been earmarking 7 per cent of its GNP for defence as compared to 3.6 per cent by India. India's per capita defence expenditure is estimated to be $10 as compared to Pakistan's $26. For each 10.000 citizens India pays for 19 soldiers and Pakistan, for 49 soldiers.
The bulge in military ex-
penditure in Ixjth the countries, seemingly, emanates from the wrong perception that only border security forces could ensure secured lives inside the fence. This premise was absolutely wrong and continues to be so.
For example, the military to social spending has been among the highest in the world in Iraq. Somalia and Nicaragua. But could they ensure their national security and integrity? But on the other side of the fence lies Costa Rica which spends not a single cent on military build-up (in fact it abolished the army in 1948) and has been devoting Instead, one-third of its national Income on health, nutrition and education
for the last few decades to become the "only prosperous democracy in a troubled Central America".
And so? Security of the nation should sincerely and judiciously be hooked on to the security of the people. Investment in people provides much more dividends than that on arms. Dollars spent on bullets are the dollars forgone for books. Under deferent scenario (say. a freeze on military spending or slashing by few percentages) the peace dividends for both India and Pakistan, say the experts, is estimated to be in the range of 80-125 billion dollars. If this is true then both of these codntries should strive to contain tensions and seek a new balances between arms and the people so that they can thrive on. Two things should clearly be borne in mind : Wars are total wars, never ever were they fought on the per capita basis — and it Is the rulers who are at wars, not their people. In a regime of grinding poverty, pervasive malnutrition and desert of illiteracy of the people of these two countries, the onus lies with the leaders to vie for attainment of human development and not for arms procurement. The countries concerned should gradually demobilize their armies of considerable discipline and skills and of immense capabilities, and deploy them in the pursuits of internal socio-economic reconstruction and development. Armies should stand by the side of their own people every now and then, not once in a long while. Let butter win over guns; let butter be at arm's length, not arms.