Trends and imperatives

SINCE the finance minister's budget speech, there has been a spate of reactions from various corners. It is a sign of the vitality of a democratic society that people from all strata are speaking out their minds on an issue that touches their lives.

Somewhere in the middle of the detailed plan on expenditures, he had two short paragraphs on national defence. He stated that Bangladesh armed forces is till date the largest contributing force under the UN flag and that in the FY 2012-13 they have earned US$72million from peacekeeping operations.

He also mentioned that the government in the past years had taken steps to induct modern fighters, tanks, missiles and ships for the 3 services, so that they are operationally ready to undertake any mission either for the defence of the country or an overseas mission under the UN flag.

The total allocation for the defence forces for FY 2013-14 was Tk.14, 564 crore.

The minister's speech this year was a welcome departure from the previous years when the defence budget had always been a 2-line statement stating what the government is going to spend for the armed forces.

However, although he stated some of the defence projects which were implemented during the recent years, it did not clarify what was actually achieved with the allocation last year or what he wants to do with the money this year.

Statements such as "building strong armed forces for the country" are too vague, and leaves much room for conjecture. Traditionally, there had never been a debate on the defence budget in the floor of the Parliament; the defence budget is generally guillotined on the evening of June 30, as the deadline for the passing of the budget nears.

Although we have a Parliamentary Committee on Defence, they spend more time on innocuous subjects such as cadet colleges or pay, pension or other privileges for the armed forces, rather than debating on the forces' goal, organisational structures or weapon procurement.

There had been attempts from the government in recent years to make the civil society, academia and the politicians more aware and interested in defence matters. One such attempt has been a fortnight-long capstone course on national defence, run by the National Defence College (NDC), participated by politicians, top civil bureaucrats, military commanders, academicians, journalists and other opinion makers.

It is hoped that such courses will bring a better understanding of civil and military issues to all segments of the society. Despite these steps, however, there is often mistrust and acrimony between civil and military leaders. While the civilian leaders think that military is exerting pressure to take away vital resources that would have been better used to build infrastructures, the military leaders think their civilian counterparts are insensitive to their genuine needs for a credible military force.

The competition of choice between the bread and bullet continues in every country.

Going back to why we should have the defence forces or what the rationale is behind defence spending, we find that defending the citizen from enemies is the prime responsibility of the state since its inception few millennia ago. The state collects taxes from the citizen with the promise that it will protect and defend its citizen from all enemies.

Citizens need to be assured that their life and property are secure from external aggression and internal subversion. A credible military force provides that assurance. A standing military today is the hallmark of an independent state, a symbol of its sovereignty.

However, national defence is only a part of a broader concept of national security. National security involves not only physical security provided by the military, but includes food security, environmental security, energy security etc. together called human security that are essential to lasting prosperity of a nation.

While we cannot neglect physical security, we cannot ignore human security either. Emphasising military security while neglecting human security leads to a state like North Korea where people go hungry while the state spends billions on nuclear weapons. Too much militarisation could also lead to a Praetorian state such as Pakistan, where military for decades interfered with the running of the government.

Striking the right balance between national development and national defence is, therefore, most important.

Bangladesh is fortunate to have no major border dispute with her neighbours. Although she shares more than 3,000km of a densely populated border with India, the border is well-demarcated except few stretches totaling about 9km. The land boundary with neighbour Myanmar is also demarcated. The sea boundary with Myanmar was settled through arbitration last year, while our maritime boundary with India is still awaiting arbitration.

We have a number of irritants along the Indo-Bangladesh border, such as adverse possessed land, enclaves, border fencing or firing across border by border guards, none of these demand military response. Most important outstanding issue with India is the sharing of water resources, while the issue of Rohingya refugees strains our friendly relation with Myanmar.

But these issues can only be resolved diplomatically.

Geo-strategically, however, Bangladesh continues to hold a very sensitive position. It straddles across Indian mainland and its NE states. With the Indian state of Arunachal being claimed by China, there is always a possibility of military conflict between China and India, as happened in 1962.

In such a scenario, Bangladesh will have to play its cards well and our military credibility will come into focus. Besides these issues, the threat of international terrorism, cross border infiltration, coastal piracy, arms and drug smuggling by anti-state elements continue to pose serious security challenges that might demand military response.

Starting in 1972 with only 3 brigades of infantry, no aircraft for the air force or ships for the navy, Bangladesh today has an army of over 7 divisions, armed with modern tanks, artillery, missiles and guns. Navy today has a blue water capability with guided-missile armed ships, maritime aircraft and helicopters. Air force has a number of combat squadrons armed with modern fighters, besides transport and helicopters. High professional standard of our armed forces attract trainees from across the world into our military training establishments. Our forces under UN flag continue to be our best ambassadors around the world.

All these achievements have come with a price. Bangladesh has traditionally spent about 1.5% of its GDP and about 6.5% of its national budget on defence. As our GDP and the size of the national budget rises, so rises the defence expenditures. Over the last 10 years, the defence budget has grown from less than Tk.4,000 crore in 2003-04 to over Tk.14,000 crore today. It is going to rise further in the next few years as the payment for the arms purchase from Russia and China falls due.

The Important question today is not how much should be spent for defence, but what the process is of decision-making. Transparency in procurement and resource distributions is vital. At a time when we have serious resource constraints, 6.5% of budget going to defence will surely raise a few eyebrows.

People would like to be assured that their money is buying the best defence for the country. Politicians, civil and military leaders, civil society, and media -- each have a role to play. Only through a national consensus can we have a robust military force.

The writer is Registrar, BRAC University.