& 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

PRAFUL BIDWAI writes from New Delhi
***What the public will really pay for defence is Rs 100,000 crores-plus. This works out to a high 3.2 percent of GDP, well above the officially claimed 2.4 percent. This is unconscionable in relation to what India spends on essential services for its people. Military spending devours a seventh of India's budget -- the highest expenditure head after interest payments.***
THOSE who expected that India's defence spending would decrease with a change of government and recently improved relations with Pakistan and China, must feel disappointed at the latest Union budget. It raises defence services spending by a hefty 7.8 percent to a colossal Rs 83,000 crores.
This comes on top of a Rs 12,000-crore hike in the United Progressive Alliance's first budget presented only last June. In just nine months, the Centrist UPA has added 26 percent to the defence burden left by the right-wing National Democratic Alliance.
The latest increase has been called "phenomenal" even by hawks. But the Rs 83,000 crores figure doesn't tell the whole story -only what's spent on the defence services.
However, the defence budget also includes establishment expenses (Rs 1,500 crores) and "defence pensions" (Rs 12,452 crores). With these, the budget rises to Rs 96,952 crores --3.05 percent of GDP.
Even this is not the full picture. The government regularly uses public sector manufacturers of armament components like Bharat Electronics Ltd, BHEL, Hindustan Aeronauticals, BEML, etc. to contribute to defence purchases through hidden subsidies -- of the order of Rs 3,000-7,000 crores.
What the public will really pay for defence is Rs 100,000 crores-plus. This works out to a high 3.2 percent of GDP, well above the officially claimed 2.4 percent.
This is unconscionable in relation to what India spends on essential services for its people. Military spending devours a seventh of India's budget -- the highest expenditure head after interest payments.
Defence spending is three times higher than what all of India invests in primary education. It is more than 275 percent higher than the public expenditure on health.
The Centre's entire spending on "social services" is budgeted at Rs 6,597 crores -- about one-sixteenth the military budget!
It simply won't do to argue that "defence is important" or that "adequate military spending is impera-
tive." Equally important is adequate investment in the health and education of our people. Submarines and fighter aircraft are necessary in moderate and balanced numbers. But is culture not important? Is investment in agriculture not necessary? Isn't the Employment Guarantee Scheme absolutely essential?
Yet, the budget allocates a miserable Rs 865 crores to culture, Rs 7,242 crores to agriculture, and Rs 11,000 crores for the EGS -- all small fractions of the defence budget.
This disproportion is both morally and politically untenable. Societies that spend too much on "security" and starve their public of basic economic opportunities actually court insecurity.
Elitist neo-liberal or "free market" policies lead to the collapse of public services and sharpen class and regional inequalities. The result is hunger, social strife, crime, and violent revolts, with loss of employment security, income security, gender security, personal security and social cohesion.
Predatory states treat such human insecurity as a law-and-order problem soluble with brute force. This becomes a self-serving argument for higher defence spend-ing.
India has followed this very pattern. Since the 1998 nuclear blasts, its military spending has doubled. As India acquires more nukes and missiles, spending will skyrocket.
Consider this contradiction: India belongs to the bottom one-fourth of the world in human development indicators. But it is among the world's top six military spenders.
This does not speak well of India's rulers. It's an unflattering
comment on their great power ambitions and callousness towards the people. Societies that follow this model are military giants with feet of clay. They can even disintegrate -like the Ottoman and Tsarist empires or the former USSR.
Much of the recent increase in India's military spending is attributable to highly expensive weapons systems, including anti-missile missiles, an aircraft carrier, submarines, multiple rocket-launchers, airplane-based radar systems, midair refuellers, light helicopters, and artillery guns.
These purchases have claimed Rs 100,000 crores over the past four years and will claim another Rs 34,375 crores this coming fiscal.
Only a fraction of this represents modernisation. Many items are weapons which give no major strategic advantage. For instance, many naval experts have passionately argued against buying the discarded and ineffective Russian air defence ship Admiral Gorshkov.
These massive purchases are guided neither by a comprehensive and rounded analysis of security needs, nor by clarity about what is adequate defence.
After South Asia's nuclearisation, India isn't likely to face a prolonged full-scale high-intensity conventional war with its neighbours (without imminent nuclear escalation). Yet, its defence planning is based on such a high likelihood.
Modernisation should mean judiciously and incrementally adding to existing arms and ammunition, not throwing huge sums after costly weapons. Thus, Japan or Brazil can be secure with one percent GDP spending on defence, and most of Western Europe with less than two percent.
India must opt for minimal defence and cut military spending. The scope here is staggering. Even a committee headed by former minister Arun Singh recommended a 10-15 percent reduction without loss of firepower.
More can be done. Eighty five percent of the army's budget is spent on the enormous manpower of 1.25 million. This can be easily reduced. Six years ago, the government announced it would reduce army manpower by 50,000. Instead, it has added 200,000 men!
Another area is energy and materials consumption. Shaktiman, the Army's main transport vehicle, has an appallingly low mileage-to-fuel ratio (about 1 km per litre). This can be easily raised fourfold. Similarly, wasteful expenditure on spares and components can be averted by reforming antiquated procedures.
India can tighten arms procurement to eradicate corruption. Every defence contract involves huge bribes -- right from purchase of eggs to procurement of tanks. Corruption flourishes because of lack of public oversight. The Comptroller and Auditor General's remit doesn't extend to defence. This must change.
The UPA shouldn't succumb to military lobbies. Their pressure will mount as India builds super-expensive nuclear weapons -always an addition to, never substitute for, conventional arms.
India must rethink its nuclear and defence postures.
Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.