Author: K Subrahmanyam
Publication: The Economic Times
Date: February 8, 2002
Indian economists, policy makers
and media may not recognise it but India will be formulating its defence
budget in a new international security paradigm.
It is now acknowledged all over
the world that the main threat to international security is terrorism and
all major powers, the US, EU, Russia, China, Japan and India have a mutuality
of strategic interest in dealing with it and eliminating it.
The economic consequences that followed
the terroristic attack of 9/11 highlighted that it is unrealistic to look
at security and economic development in two separate compartments.
Security and economic development
are symbiotically related especially when the threat arises from international
terrorism driven by religious extremism.
Unfortunately part of the debate
in this country on defence and development is still on the basis of conventional
wisdom of guns vs butter.
For the first time in his State
of the Union message the US President has talked of America working with
Russia, China and India in ways the US had never before done to achieve
peace and prosperity.
This declaration signals that cold
war rivalries are over and secondly it also indicates that US is looking
at India, not in terms of Indo-Pakistan equation but as a global player.
In the war against international
terrorism India and the US are already co-operating in terms of security
of sea lanes in the Malacca Straits, Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean and the
Arabian Sea.
Even as a high-powered Russian team
headed by the Russian deputy prime minister is holding discussions on transfer
of nuclear submarines, aircraft carrier and naval bombers, the US Seventh
Fleet is conducting naval talks with the Indian Navy. The US and Russia
do not look at India's defence co-operation with the other power in the
old bi-polar rivalry terms.
The epicentre for the war against
terrorism is Pakistan. After clearing up Afghanistan of Al Qaeda and Taliban
the focus is now on Pakistan where a large proportion of Al Qaeda and Taliban
cadres have slipped in.
They have very close interaction
with the Pakistan army, Inter Services Intelligence and the jehadi groups.
While the Americans hope to coerce Pakistani military leadership to reverse
course and give up the decades-old culture of terrorism and extremism,
it cannot be ruled out that the international war against terrorism centred
in Pakistan may take a long time.
The war will have to be fought in
novel ways using military, diplomatic, and economic containment and not
conventional military occupation.
The war will continue till Pakistan
undergoes a cultural revolution and becomes a moderate Islamic state and
a responsible member of the international community. While the US may be
using soft language vis-a-vis Pakistan at this stage, the massive US force
deployment in this region after Afghanistan was cleared can leave no one
in doubt for what purpose those forces are meant.
Therefore, the Indian defence planning
has to take into account India's role in international security framework
and be prepared to discharge that role in the new globalised security paradigm.
It so happens that the new international
threat of terrorism originates from India's sibling adversary, Pakistan,
and when the present international war on terrorism is brought to an end
there should be a partial solution to the threat to Indian security arising
out of 57 years of Pakistan's religious extremism and terrorism. However,
India is also required to accept new global security responsibilities.
Of the major powers, the US, European
Union and Japan are linked by military alliance even after the end of cold
war. NATO and Russia are partners in peace and are within a common security
framework of OSCE (Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe).
Therefore, Russia too is today a
part of the global security framework sharing the common value system of
democracy and market economy.
There is no doubt that the US is
the sole super power and for at least the next 50 years there is no likelihood
of US dominance in military, economic, and technological terms being challenged
by any other power or combination of powers.
The Europeans, Russians and Chinese
accept this imperative. They also recognise that if they are to influence
the US in its global policies it has to be based on their building up their
own respective autonomous defence capabilities and not on total reliance
on the US. The European Union wants to build its own autonomous defence
capability.
Foreign direct investment would
flow into India only if it is seen as a global player and secure from terrorist
threats. Deng Xiao Peng's China could not have had the higher economic
growth and foreign investments except on the basis that China was seen
as a partner in security terms by the US, Japan and EU in the '80s and
'90s.
Since then, in the more recent years,
China is no longer seen as much as a partner as it was then. Some of our
difficulties with the Southeast Asian, West Asian and SAARC neighbours
are due to their perception that in global security framework India is
not with the main stream.
When that perception is rectified
and India is seen playing such a global role that is bound to have its
impact on the political and economic relations of these neighbours with
India.
Therefore, the Indian defence capabilities
need to be modernised and made adequate to enable this country to play
such a role. It would take a change in mindset, adjustments in our foreign
and defence policies and long range defence planning.
All this will take time and if Indian
economy were to grow at around 6-7 per cent this can be achieved without
the defence budget exceeding 3 per cent of GDP (At present the Indian defence
expenditure is around 2.6 per cent of the GDP.) over the next 5-6 years
and then stabilising it at around that level.
The political leadership is still
to educate the country with an overall assessment of the new international
security situation and India's place and role in it. Without such an education
the forthcoming defence budget, with a significant increase, will come
under the usual criticism of development being sacrificed for defence.
