South Asia’s
Double-barreled Arms Race
By Dr Ahmad Faruqui
Danville, California
The arms race between India and
Pakistan is a double-barreled one, with one barrel
containing conventional warheads and the other barrel
containing nuclear warheads. Ironically, the race
is happening at a time when both countries have
said that the peace process between them is irreversible.
Pakistan’s military has begun receiving American
military aid after a decade-long hiatus. Domestically,
this gives the generals a chance to play to jingoistic
sentiments. Internationally, the aid is justified
by the war against terror. India, with its eyes
set on becoming a great power, has signed an unprecedented
10-year defense pact with the US. It has joined
hands with the US to contain China at a time when
it has successfully defused its Himalayan border
problem.
On August 11, Pakistan tested its first cruise missile
capable of delivering nuclear warheads with “pinpoint
accuracy” at a distance of 500 km. Its firing
on the president’s birthday was portrayed
as a gift to the nation. But coming three days before
the 58th Independence Day, it was a potent reminder
that without the Khakis, there would be no national
security.
Musharraf made no secret of the fact that the Pakistani
missile was India-specific and alluded to the imbalance
that had been created by India’s decision
to acquire Patriot missiles from the US. He said
the missile’s range was longer than that of
its Indian counterpart. The missile firing made
a mockery of the high-profile announcement that
had been made a week earlier that the two countries
would warn each other before test launches. A Pakistani
spokesman tamely said, “We are only supposed
to give pre-warning for ballistic missiles.”
Cruise missiles add a new dimension to the ongoing
race in the field of ballistic missiles. The missiles
carry ominous names. India’s Agni missile
is named after the Hindu deity of fire. Pakistan’s
Babur and Ghauri missile are named after Muslim
rulers from Central Asia who conquered India centuries
ago. While one may ask, “What’s in a
name/A missile by any name/Would be just as dangerous,”
names that evoke past hostilities can hardly be
viewed as harbingers of peace.
Some of the existing missiles can hit targets that
are 2,000 km distant. India will shortly best this
range by firing a missile with a 3,000 km range
and is said to be working on a truly intercontinental
range missile that could hit places as far away
as Los Angeles. It would be a surprise if Pakistani
scientists were not busy at work extending the range
and accuracy of their missiles.
So, while both countries speak of the need to maintain
a minimum deterrent in the field of nuclear weapons,
the dynamics of the arms race are such that tomorrow’s
minimum level exceeds yesterday’s maximum
level. In addition, the development of nuclear weapons
and ballistic missiles has not reduced the expenditure
on conventional forces. Decades ago, the race was
confined to combat aircraft, warships, submarines,
tanks and artillery pieces. Then ballistic missiles
entered the picture, followed by nuclear warheads.
There has been no nuclear dividend in South Asia,
let alone a peace dividend. Both countries are using
the excuse of “modernization” to spend
more funds on conventional forces. About 41 percent
of India’s defense budget is devoted to capital
expenditures for purchasing newer and more potent
submarines, an aircraft carrier, fighter jets and
tanks. Pakistan’s military expenditures are
shrouded in secrecy.
The 18-month old “composite dialogue”
between the two countries has given the rivals the
perfect cover to engage in higher levels of military
spending. To be in tune with the times, the volume
of negative governmental rhetoric is at an all time
low. The ceasefire in Kashmir is holding. Even Manmohan
Singh’s recent statement that the Pakistani
nuclear arsenal was not in safe hands was met with
admirable restraint by Islamabad as were equally
strident statements from New Delhi that there were
no plans to withdraw forces from Jammu and Kashmir.
But there is no sign that these peace overtures
have shut down the arms race. Pakistan raised its
military spending by 15 percent in its new budget,
about double the rate of growth of the economy.
It plans to spend $3.75 billion this fiscal year.
India raised its military spending by 7.7 percent,
which follows an increase of 27 percent in the prior
budget. It plans to spend $19 billion this fiscal
year. The two countries, among the poorest in the
world, are spending some $23 billion annually. These
figures do not include expenditures associated with
military pensions, which could account for an additional
15 percent, nor do they include expenditures on
nuclear forces, which could account for an additional
20 to 30 percent. Thus, in aggregate terms, they
may be spending upwards of $30 billion.
These costs are even higher when evaluated in purchasing-power-parity
(PPP) terms. India spends $100 billion in PPP terms,
which makes it the third largest military spender
in the globe, right after China, which spends $150
billion, and the US, which spends $450 billion.
While the arms race has been around for a long time,
the big change is the emergence of the US as a prominent
arms supplier. During the past decade, the US only
provided 8 percent of Pakistan’s arms imports
and less than 1 percent of India’s. Conscious
of the stigma that attaches to merchants of death,
Washington has rejected the notion that its arms
sales will trigger an arms race. While explaining
the sale of F-16s to Pakistan, US Secretary of State
Condi Rice said the deal should be viewed in a larger
geopolitical context, since the F-16s would bring
stability in the arc of countries that stretches
from Afghanistan and Central Asia. She said the
sale to India would position the US as a reliable
supplier of high quality defense equipment.
The ultimate issue for both countries is the opportunity
cost of defense spending. For example, the $3 billion
that Pakistan will spend on 75 F-16s could be used
to improve the quality of life of millions who live
below the poverty line. For that sum of money, the
government could build some 8,000 primary health
care units and 100,000 new village schools, double
the budgetary allocation for higher education and
health and increase the number of cement plants
and sugar mills by 50 percent.
By equating arms with survival and with great power
status respectively, Islamabad and New Delhi have
committed their nations to a fruitless arms race
that ensures the continued impoverishment of their
citizens. More dangerously, it carries within itself
the seeds of a horrific conflict.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
