Pakistan needs to stop spending on its defence so much

Published: May 9, 2015

Dar-nomics has a once-in-a-life time opportunity to steer the country and fix its structural issues. CREATIVE COMMONS

It was October 30, 2003 – 11 and a half years ago – when someone at The Economist penned an article titled Pakistan’s economy: Feeling undervalued. For the next three years, every Taimur (Tom), Danial (Dick) and Haris (Harry) praised and rejoiced the unprecedented economic growth rate in the history of Pakistan.

But what happened with the West’s financial press that suddenly – and finally – people started taking about a Pakistan with something else to offer than its role in War on Terror?

The answer is surprisingly simple; falling oil prices – and the economic growth that followed suit.

In the fiscal year of 2014, Pakistan spent a whopping $14.7 billion on petroleum imports. An assumed sustainable fall of 40 per cent in the global oil prices saves an enormous $6 billion a year (assuming the import quantity remains the same). Of course, at such attractive levels, the demand is ripe to increase by 20 to 30 per cent. Even then, the country may be able to save $4 to $4.5 billion a year conveniently.

This is something which our government should understand and use to Pakistan’s advantage.

Dar-nomics has a once-in-a-life time opportunity to steer the country and fix its structural issues. With the amount of money saved from buying economical petroleum products, our government can bring forth a much-needed growth – both in terms of financial and developmental projects. The economic progress over the next two years shall determine the fate of the upcoming elections due in 2018.

But with every hope, there is a lingering chance of disappointment.

The current government has been boasting about maintaining the year-on-year inflation number to 2.11%, but the truth is, the credit solely goes to Uncle Sam’s hydraulic fracturing and decline in global agricultural markets. Don’t believe me? Well, you will be surprised to know that we pay more for wheat, rice, sugar and milk in local markets than their prices in the global markets. Put into numbers, our citizens pay 20 to 30 per cent more than international prices of these products. Why? Because politicians will be politicians – they want votes and thus they increase import duties on these products to deliberately inflate the landlord’s fatter pay-cheques (as they steer the vote banks) and transfer the onus on an already cash-strapped middle-income class.

So why wouldn’t the inflation rate go down?

But whether people are suffering because of this is not the government’s concern. No sir.

The money saved from the falling oil prices will not only be an effective tool to cushion the foreign reserves-hungry economy of Pakistan with a substantial $4 to $4.5 billion annual saving but will also contribute to a marked reduction in financial costs that the government pays on domestic loans. With the total domestic loans hovering at Rs12 trillion ($115bn), God’s gift (read: falling oil prices) has given the cushion of a three per cent cut in the interest payment, resulting in another $3.5 billion or so reduction in ‘national expenses’.

However, the government is least concerned with providing relief to its people.

In fact, Dar-nomics realised the benefits consumers were gaining from the falling oil prices and decided to increase the sales tax on oil-related products in order to negate further profit to the middle and business class.

With so much going in favour of the governors, it really would be a shame if Pakistan’s managers fail to capitalise and continue to engage in their own dull version of Game of Thrones.

With less than two years into the government, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has sold all of the major gooses which laid our golden eggs; HBL ($1bn), UBL ($387mn), PPL ($155mn) and ABL ($120mn) along with the 3G and 4G auctions fetching another $1.1bn. There really isn’t much left for Ishaq Dar to put up on sale.

The real test for the government was to cure the cancer of its economy – PIA and Pakistan Steel Mill – which seems to have been largely ignored so far.

All that cash is pouring into the government’s purses and not in ours. And where is the government investing all that money in? Defence, of course. The government has already decided to allocate $1 billion towards purchase of helicopters from US, +$500 million for another 50 JF-17 Thunder and a yawning sum of $4 to $5 billion to induct eight naval submarines. So, to those optimistic readers who were hoping for a sharp pedal to jump-start the economy in a jiffy, well, quit deluding yourself. The jazzy new military equipment is, to a larger extent, necessary to count the rhetoric of Pakistan-bashing Mr Narendar Moody (I apologise for my poor spelling but not for the factual depiction) but the extent of the diversion of resources could have been slightly muted.

Men-in-uniform could have still survived (cough) on the 110-120 nuclear war-heads but that investment, if directed to the power sector, would have definitely generated 3000-3500MW of electricity to actually en-lighten  all of Pakistan.

In order to appease the lenders, Dar has already engaged into a fiscal tightening mode under which his numerous slaps of taxes have become really troubling for businesses and consumers alike. He may receive a pat on his shoulder from his highnesses for keeping the fiscal deficit below five per cent but this was the very junction at which development funds should have been enhanced and not slashed. On one hand, we are relentlessly busy borrowing – a mild version of begging – from lenders and the mighty China to give us money so that we could have electricity in the 21st century and on the other hand, we are stuffing our already capable, equipped and finest men-in-uniform with more military equipment.

In 1945, Korea was bifurcated into two territories along the 38th parallel – North and South. The former is a military might while the latter is an economic might. Individuals, as well as institutions, in whose hand is the steering of the country always face a choice between the two. In the past, we have emulated – and surpassed – the North Korean military advancement. It is high time to take South Korea’s entrepreneurial vision and head northwards to the league of emerging economies.

Arslaan Asif Soomro

Arslaan Asif Soomro

The author has a degree in Investment Management from Cass Business School, London and has also obtained CFA and FRM qualifications. He is currently working as a Senior Advisor to Swedish based Tundra Fonder AB.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • Xeric

    If the writer is indeed an economist (which i doubt), he instead of suggesting reduction in Defence Budget (which infact is declining or at best not increasing – the new figures that we see each year are because of inflation) should have focused on correcting parasites of country namely the PSE like Pak Steel, PIA, Passco etc which costs the National Exchequer Rs 300-400 Billion each year in losses!

    Proof: Eight public sector enterprises gobbled down Rs1,500 billion in 48 Months

    Our Defence Budget is around Rs 600-700 Billion, that is to say, if we would stop the pilferage in our system due to corruption & lethargy and stop ‘economists’ like the author guiding our national economic policy and thereby prevent the loss our (Profit) organizations like PIA, Pak Steel give us each year (Approx Rs 500 Billion), we ca run our military almost free of cost!! But then, that’s something a real economist would understand.

    Moreover, militaries the world over are Non-Profit Organizations. You pay, they in return provide Services, unlike Mills or Factories. Even then our military, apart from paying 100% tax, pay back apporx Rs 200 Billion to the National Exchequer through the tax it pays on its MilBus. This is apart from the funding and foreign exchange our soldiers brings in while serving on UN Missions abroad.

    Lastly, i’ll let the readers to judge the wisdom behind authors suggestion that we should have made a power plant and not those 110 x Nukes.

    Sir, if you could have just suggested that we should have made Kalabahg Dam to overcome power crises), i might have taken your blog a bit more seriously.Recommend

  • Abdul

    Hmmmm an equity manager telling the whole nation what should be done. Interesting.
    Mr Soomro at the end of the day u asked the govt not to give military any financial support when there is war going on inside Pakistan and we have two hostile neighbours and countless intelligence agencies operating within our borders.
    Sir God Forbid if you would have lost any dear one who is fighting for Pakistan or who is killed by anti state elements, you would never have dared to utter a word.Recommend

  • Humza

    Pakistan is sandwiched in a difficult place. India is the number 1 buyer of weapons in the world despite having hundreds of millions of people without toilets. The world community should put pressure on India to stop its colossal waste of money on planes and arms in order that all of its neighbors can live in peace. The only bone of contention in South Asia is Kashmir and if the UN forces all parties to let the Kashmiri people determine their own future in accordance to UN resolutions, there would be no rancor. It is the British and Indians who cheated the Kashmiri peoples right to determine their own future at the time of independence and India’s stubborn insistence on keeping occupied Kashmir hostage for decades. I am all for less defense spending, but what would stop India from taking over Pakistan like it has been illegally occupying part of Kashmir?Recommend

  • Alann

    If Pakistan reduces the spending on defence, how do you think they will be able to fight against Indian-sponsored Taliban (bad version, not the good one fighting in Afghanistan for Pakistan’s strategic depth), BRA, BLA, RAW & KFC?!
    For the defence of Pakistan, it is necessary to spend more on defence in the form of (more) nukes, DHA plots and BMW 7 series cars for the Army so it can continue to safeguard Pakistan’s territorial integrity.

    On a slightly serious note, I’ve always said, Ishaq Dar is the worst Finance Minister Pakistan has ever had. He knows nothing about economics. But then I guess, Pakistanis deserve such people, so..oh well.Recommend

  • Jalal

    Well if it wants to then Punjabis should pay for it not the rest of us.Recommend

  • Queen

    It is true that present government’s economic policies are not up to the mark. The PML-N government has yet to deliver what it had promised during its election campaign. But according to World Bank report of April 2014, Pakistan’s economy has shown some improvement due to better performance of the manufacturing and services sector resulting in revival of investor confidence. It should be noted that Pakistan has kept on increasing its spending on defense in order to counter the arms race initiated by India in the region. According to the Wall Street Journal, India has increased its military spending by 11% percent for the next fiscal year. Pakistan is forced to increase defense budget in order to maintain minimum credible deterrence. Instead of this huge military spending, both Pakistan and India need to focus more on concerning issues like health, poverty, and education but keeping in view the regional situation, it seems unlikely that this will be done in near future.
    Although South Korea has ‘economic might’ but it should be noted that South Korea too has decided to increase its defense spending by over $ 200 billion over the five years.

  • Rohail

    a couple of years ago, the blogers were clamoring that Pakistan Army should fight terrorist instead of holding peace talks,now they are reiterating budged increase. Hypocrisy

  • Sanjeev Khurana

    Congrats to ArseLoan Asif for writing something sensible ; from a Moody FanRecommend

  • Striver

    Guns V Butter hypotheses is not valid for Pakistan. It was not valid for US either.

    What Pakistan needs is an end to corruption and “commission culture” that exists wihtin the corridors of power. This alone should set the country on the road to prosperity.

    In due course the Pakistan-built weapons will start contributing to the GDP and earn foreign exchange,

    We tend to forget how the American military-industrial complex “built” the American economy.Recommend

  • jracforr

    If 110 nuclear bombs cannot creat a sense of security in Pakistan what will it take to do so. The arms merchants of this world are the real winners and they will reduce every nation to poverty and strife as their social fabric unravell under the burden of military spending.Pakistan and all other nations will soon discover their greatest threat will come from their own impoverish citizens as the French Revolution of the seventeenth century showed.Recommend

  • DK

    Author’s degree from London has not taught him to look up the correct spelling of a world leader. If Modi is the designated enemy numero uno, then at least learn a little more about him starting with his name. As they say, keep your friends close but your enemies closer….Recommend

  • bruce lee

    Pakistan is getting ready for war the best way to avoid war is to prepare for warRecommend

  • Tajamul Hussain Turi

    very intelligent guyRecommend

  • {PK} Uzair

    hey indian tribune
    as soon as the cyber crime bill is passed
    your the first sight were banningRecommend

  • Suleman

    vis-à-vis we need to fix punctured bureaucratic setup, as It legitimizes the conquest of incompetent policymakers..
    a good reed BTWRecommend

  • Emad

    “Men-in-uniform could have still survived (cough) on the 110-120 nuclear war-head”, that is quite frankly a disgraceful statement to make. Dear author you are living in the comfort and protection of the British army and hence do not realize the significance of spending on National Defense, especially for a country like Pakistan where the army is gripped into major conflicts such as Baluchistan, North Waziristan, LoC and Karachi. Thus i am deeply offended by the fact that you said that “Men-in-uniform could have survived” i am sorry but every single man wearing that uniform is Pakistani and it’s not a matter of HIS survival (because no one goes to war to survive) but infact its a matter regarding the National security of Pakistan. Your argument regarding nukes as being a sufficient defense actually quite hysterical because no one uses nukes for terrorism campaigns in wars such as Zarb-e-Azb (unless you are implying that the army use nukes on it’s own land), thus nukes are only a last resort which cannot be relied on solely for national security.Recommend

  • Umar

    Mr Arslaan thanks for good effort. Be cognizant that money saved from defense will not be used for enlightening Pakistan but would be transferred else where through many like Eman Ali. So be grateful to Almighty that something going on defense can’t be transferred at least. It will remain in Pakistan. Recollect the stories of brothers like Mirza Sb and others. Let’s not be taken away by simple economic calculations. Your mention of PIA, Steel Mills etc is an evidence of what I am trying to register for every one.Recommend

  • Rizwan Nasar

    What Pakistan needs to stop is these so called elected leaders fleecing the country and stashing their loots in overseas banks. They should be held responsible and all the looted treasury of the country should be brought back! If Pakistan needs to survive, we need a strong military who can deal with both internal and external threats that is challenging Pakistan since its independence!Recommend

  • Headstrong

    If you want India to reduce its military budget, why don’t you convince your higher- than-mountains, deeper-than-oceans, sweeter-then-honey friend to follow suit. We can all live happily ever after then.Recommend

  • Raza

    Taimur danial and Harris had me laughing on the floor

    but the article makes valid points nonethelsessRecommend

  • Unknown


  • Humza

    A second try at this because the ET moderator did not like the first comment. No developing country should be wasting money on defense spending I agree. In Pakistan’s case it is in a difficult part of the world and its neighbor to the east, India, is the world’s largest buyer of weapons. For reasons which confound the world, India spends tens of billions on armaments when half the population there do not have access to toilets and their access to clean drinking water and sanitation is much worse than Pakistan. There is a reason why India has difficult relations with all its neighbors – whether Sri Lanka, China, Pakistan, Nepal and even Bangladesh in whose creation they had a pivotal role. The only outstanding issue between India and Pakistan is the disputed area of Kashmir. The world community should encourage both parties to abide by UN resolutions on this region and respect the wishes of the people in terms of choosing their destiny. Once this is solved, the root problem in South Asia’s wars will be settled.Recommend

  • Omer

    kudos….for writing a great piece. But trust me….nothing will open the eyes of this sleeping nation….Recommend

  • Ghulam Lone

    Do you really he was employing a literary technique? Recommend

  • islooboy

    Burger logicRecommend

  • islooboy


  • islooboy

    Dont worry we will throw schools at emRecommend

  • rtnguy

    Pak already has defence shield of China which was affirmed by Xi Jinping. Any attack on pak will be an attack on China as per Jinpin so India cannot in dreams attack pak . However we will defend kashmir at all cost as it the gateway to India which pakistan is not.Pakistan is a middle land between India and arabistan so its existance does not threaten India per se.Recommend

  • Zohaib

    It is sad to see the comments below. The author in his blog has allocated a mere 20% discussion on the army but 80% of the comments below are related to that 20%. We all are blinded by our preconceived preferences. The author has merely tried to point out that wasteful spending should be avoided. However in our current scenario where we fight a near civil war military spending is wise. It however becomes wasteful during peace time. And we all from our experiences know its easy to increase spending and very difficult to reduce. I believe the author only meant that the benefits we are receiving from reduced oil price should be channeled to the larger public through development spending, which I agree to. However we have many other structural reforms in energy, tax, corruption, corporate governance, bureaucracy, transportation, law & order which need to be addressed for sustained economic development.Recommend

  • Queen

    Keeping in view the regional situation, it is unlikely that either India or China will decrease their defense spending in near future as both countries are making huge economic progress and are vying to establish their hegemony in the region. Having friendly relations with a country is one thing but this does not mean that a country can interfere in another country’s internal matters. If you have an understanding of how international relations work, then it will be easy to understand that India cannot influence Russia preventing it from improving ties with regional countries including Pakistan and similarly, Pakistan cannot urge China to stop increasing its defense budget.Recommend

  • Swaadhin

    You are right, Pakistan is the epitome of innocence despite having launched all wars in the subcontinent and your recipe for peace in subcontinent is nothing new, this is exactly what u have been harping on for generations. For the first time since independence your adversaries would like to see you continue with the game you have been playing, it’s a game where you are convinced the entire world is against you for being the most important country in the world strategically. Recommend

  • Aborigine

    You ought know by now that “Modi” is a boogeyman, who must be invoked once in a while as a cheap applause line for the cheap seats. Mr. Soomloo, despite his fancy-schmancy degree from London, falls into this trap even when it is not necessary to his analysis. Modi, Moody . . .whatever. As if it matters.Recommend

  • Saad Hasan

    Facts would help. The $1B of US weaponry that is being talked about is being funded by US Military assistance and the CSF. Pakistan is not paying a penny out of this and this is also the reason that the weapons being bought are of US origin as stipulated by the US laws for military assistance.

    Secondly, Pakistan spends less than 2.5% of its GDP on defence. This is something that should not be lost. Countries like KSA and Israel spend upwards of 5% based on perceived threat. At the end of the day, our spending on defence is based on the capability that the other side maintains, regardless of their nice intentions.

    While its really easy to take pot shots at the defence budget, realize that we could be managing our affairs much better if we did not waste the money that goes into the public sector and by actually increasing the tax net, we could open up other avenues of revenue for the GoP.Recommend

  • mesh-ooga

    Probably, and a bit brave, too, as he assails a pet budget item. His humor, if we can call it that, needs more work.Recommend

  • Saad Hasan

    Its the same sense of security that drove the Russians and the Americans to make not 110 but 25000 warheads. The issue is that of relative security. India is spending and spending a lot on its military. Pakistan cannot afford to not spend when we have active operations going on in FATA and Balochistan among other things.Recommend

  • Saad Hasan

    If you want to criticize, do it on the basis of factual points. What does DHA plots and BMW 7 series have to do with the defence spending? There is a war going on, do you want senior civilian and military leadership to travel around in Rikshaws? Where do you find cars with protection against 7.62mm bullets and grenades other than with Mercedes and BMW both of which provide these vehicles all over the world’s hotspots. Sometimes its not about the perceived luxury, rather the functionality that comes at a cost.

    Let me suggest you request your beloved Indian government and Modi ji to not spend as much on the defence and Pakistan will follow suit.Recommend

  • Meshuga

    You’ve already said the same thing twice. Your nation’s paranoia and historical amnesia about India, not anything else, has been, if I can be so bold, the single CAUSE of all the bad effects you’ve been enjoying. Yes, India would love to take over Pakistan as its people love Muslims so much that they wouldn’t mind adding another 180 million (and growing fast). The pressure of the world community has not worked too well on Pakistan, when there was and is leverage. I am nor sure how well it will work with India? But keep entertaining yourself with self-created proof-free narrative.Recommend

  • Nouman Ahmed

    1) Change your title because you have just bashed government and nothing else and heading has nothing to do with that.
    2)You said we pay more for wheat as compared to global market. Did you mention that we pay much less for petrol as compared to many countries?
    3)Admit it that many independent organizations have regarded progress of Pakistan’s economy satisfactory. As a sensible layman, I will take their word over your word any day.
    4)Your suggestion that army’s budget should be cut down is valid. But think realistically, we are living with two hostile borders; we are engaged in an internal war on terrorism. Army is doing an operation in Karachi. As much as I hate Army for DHA and having Banglows, I think we should touch defense budget during this war. Moreover, India is spending mindlessly on warfare. You are really dumb to think that Pakistan will cut down defense budget when India is increasing defense budget every year.Recommend

  • Nouman Ahmed

    Dude time changes, things changes.Recommend

  • rationalist

    This brings memories of the big earthquake that struck many areas of Pakistan a few years ago. The international community sent about $4B in aid money. Musharraf promptly spent all that on Swedish radar, new jet fighters, missiles and other toys. Pakistan spends over 10% on defense (including $3B on nukes, missiles, military pensions/salaries, interest payment on accumulated borrowed money to purchase foreign military equipment and downward revising the cooked up GDP figure etc.) This is not sustainable in the long run.Recommend

  • rationalist

    India spends about 2.2% of its GDP on defense while Pakistan’s true spending is over 10%.

    The other neighbors such as Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Burma, Bhutan etc. spend very little on defense. They are not worried about “the difficult part of the world and its neighbor to the east, India” like Pakistan does. The case of Bangladesh has particular relevance to Pakistan having been the larger part of Pakistan once. Why doesn’t BD worry about India gobbling up and annexing its land like Pakistan worries?Recommend

  • Arslan Asif Soomro

    Dear Emad,

    I, as the Author, have utmost love for our very capable military men fighting to defend us. And no, I studied under the protection of “British Army”, but I am very much settled in Pakistan. My remark for “survival” implied that our “nuclear-deterrence” policy and our military capability are alhamdulilah far stronger to resist and attack in any combat requirements. Attention is mistakenly being diverted, please read my faith in our armed personnel;

    “our already capable, equipped and finest men-in-uniform” & “we have emulated – and surpassed – the North Korean military advancement.”

    Moreover, developing nuclear capability is expensive and since you said use of nukes is not advisable (rightly so), hence you second my point my dear, that additional nuclear capability could be temporarily halted and diverted to more economy-boosting-development.

    Plus, as a Pakistani and a student of global politics, I am well aware and in entire submission to enriching our armed forces to counter the internal and external threats. Therefore, in my statement, I agreed that it is necessary;

    “The jazzy new military equipment is, to a larger extent, necessary to count the rhetoric of Pakistan-bashing Mr Narendar Moody (I apologise for my poor spelling but not for the factual depiction) but the extent of the diversion of resources could have been slightly muted.”. However, the diversion “EXTENT” should be reduced temporarily to provide jobs and and infrastructure to 190 Mn people like you and I.Recommend

  • AAH

    Mr Indian, Moody is not his name but his title. LolRecommend

  • AAH

    Mr Abdul, kindly re-read the blog to discover that I did not – categorically repeating DID NOT – ask the government “NOT” to give ANY financial support. My mere suggestion, as someone who has his roots tied to Rural areas, is to reduce the extent of diversion slightly.

    The jazzy new military equipment is, to a larger extent, necessary to count the rhetoric of Pakistan-bashing Mr Narendar Moody (I apologise for my poor spelling but not for the factual depiction) but the extent of the diversion of resources could have been slightly muted.

    Please refrain from misunderstanding the purpose – to enrich our nation economically as well.Recommend

  • Headstrong

    Thank you for that brilliant insight. Then you will understand that India is not going to stop spending on defence just because Pakistan feels compelled to divert funds from much needed development projects to match India. For starters, compare defence budgets as a percentage of GDP of all three countries. Recommend

  • AAH

    Did not study*Recommend

  • Humza

    In absolute terms, India remains the biggest spender on weapons – no matter how you spin it. Most of India’s neighbors allow themselves to be bullies by India but why should Pakistan allow itself to be bullied too? The real issue is why not spend a small percentage of the hundreds of billions India wastes on jet fighters or other arms on social development for the hundreds of millions who don’t have access to clean drinking water, toilets, schools or a roof to sleep over?These poor people wouldn’t care less about whether India is subjugating Kashmiris but they would be equitable citizens of India.Recommend

  • Emad

    I completely agree with you on your economical analysis in the first few paragraphs however my point is that before we spend any more money on civil needs such as electricity,infrastructure,etc; we need to look at how effective the current spending actually is because whats the point in spending lots of money when only a very small percentage of that will actually be effective. So i think first we need a clean-up of our system to make sure that intermediaries which are involved in the transfer of money from the government to the public are actually honest and are not involved in corruption. So the underlying issue over here is not military spending (because military spending has generally proved to be quite effective due to very little corruption and this can be seen by various military achievements such as the JF-17 thunder program, missile advancements and recent introduction of homemade armed drones) but rather the real issue is that money being spent is either not reaching the end beneficiaries as it is supposed or it is simply being spent the wrong way (due to twisted political priorities)Recommend

  • Meshuga

    So, should have learned from them. The security that nuclear weapons provide is a mirage. Incidentally, the geographic distances between the US and Russia and the size of those countries (4th largest and the largest) were also factors. There was also room for error. They’ve both reduced their nuclear arsenals substantially since 1989. One nuclear weapon fired by mistake by either side in a Pakistan-India has no margin for error – no time to destroy or recall the missile once fired. And once fired, it will unleash Russian, Chinese, and American nuclear weapons. So besides South Asia turning into charred toast, the world will be plunged into a nuclear winter. That will be the way the world will end. Not with a whimper but a Big Bang.Recommend

  • Aborigine

    Not an epitome of innocence yet, but 97% there – give another decade perhaps. :-)Recommend

  • gp65

    You are directionally correct but there is a small factual inaccuracy. Actually India spends 1.7% of its GDP on defense.

  • Gp65

    India spends 1.7% of its GDP on defense and 4.1% on education ie twice as much on education as defense. In determining its defense budget, it does not take into account the fact that China spends so much more than India. The goal is to have enough to deter a neighbour from starting a war.

    Pakistan claims it spends 3% of its GDP on defense. When the pension of army and other such hidden expenses are taken into account, Pakistan spends 3.5% of GDP on defense while spending less than 2% on education.

    If you want to justify poorly funded schools go ahead. It is your country that suffers not India.Recommend

  • gp65

    Ha ha. Very funny. Any explanation for why the first name was also misspelt?Recommend

  • gp65

    India spends 1.7% of its GDP on defense – less than half what it spends on education at 4.1%Recommend

  • Gp65

    Has India attacked Bangladesh whose defense budget is a small fraction of Pakistan’s and it does nit even have nuclear weapons? If India wanted to reverse partition, wouldn’tBangladesh be the obvious country to attack? In fact would not India have stayed as an occupying force in 1971 much like USA has stayed in Afghanistan?

    Reality is India has no interest in occupying Pakistan and inheriting such an intolerant population.

    Please note, Raja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession to India only and only because PAKISTAN attacked Kashmir. Kashmir would have remained an independent country if it wasn’t for Pakistan’s attempt to snatch it,Recommend

  • DNiwasi

    Did the Moghul rulers anywhere in the world face any French style uprising? NO. Then why will Pakistan. The entire lot of politicians in Pkistan consider themselves to be descendants of Moghul rulers of India. Public is no more than their servants to be tolerated. The country in their views is only for the elites to enjoy.Recommend

  • RFD

    Nope. Not so at all. It is more than 2.2% of the Indian GDP. Closer
    to 7%. The subsidizing of nearly 2 million man army alone requires
    a huge chunk of cash. Not to mention their clothing, housing and feeding.Then the ever present specter of Chinese ‘Bhoot’. All this,
    is besides the ‘Rangers’ and Govt. personnel that are needed to
    quell the indigenous insurgencies in Assam, Bodoland, Nagaland,
    and Arunachal Pradesh. Not counting the perpetual unrest in
    Mizoram and Tripura. So far the Kerala insurgency has been savagely
    decimated. But it is still alive. Should we go into Indian occupied
    Kashmir? Where the majority of the Indian Army is deployed in
    in perpetuity. [ Since China is just hop and skip away too.].
    However, you will not believe or comprehend any of this. You only
    believe the dictates of the Saffron Lord, Modi, Himself.Recommend

  • Farhan

    Yes and, Hyderabad would have remained an independent country if it wasn’t for Indias attempt to snatch it,Recommend

  • RFD

    Ahh,…there, see the Indian angst? The author wrote an excellent
    article. But, the Indians had to find something wrong. Anything.
    Who cares how the Saffron Lord’s name is spelled. Just call him
    Maharaj’s acolyte or Sadhvi Prachi’s boss or Bajrang Dal’s mentor.Recommend

  • AAH

    Goes to show how thoroughly Indians probe the details. Such Moody-ismRecommend

  • AAH

    1) Title is selected by the editors.
    2) Yes, we do pay lesser than many countries. But agriculture (read food) is what matters to poor people than us.
    3) “Satisfactory”? Admitted. Read the economic outlook before the oil started crashing in August 2014. It is below par.
    4) India is spending 7 to 8 times than us on infrastructure, energy, services, it etc etc. They are competing with China on both fronts – military and economically. Our focus seems only on the former.Recommend

  • AAH

    Good to hear from your gp65. Always make factual cases.Recommend

  • Queen

    If you read my comment then you will see that I have also said the same thing. Pakistan is forced to spend more on defense in order to maintain minimum credible deterrence against India. If only the relations between the two countries can improve then the funds which are being spent on defense can be spent on other concerning issues like education in Pakistan and poverty in India.Recommend

  • Queen

    Thank you for your kind remarks. I have never said that India should stop spending funds on defense. India should make its policy decisions keeping in view its foreign policy objectives and similarly, Pakistan, China and other countries should also make decisions depending on their policies and objectives.Recommend

  • {PK} Uzair

    ever heard of Auto correct?