Military strength is normally linked — in all countries with perceived threat perceptions — to the role of the forces and the resources available to maintain the force level desired. Pakistan is no different. Hence its formal announcement of cutting back 50,000 soldiers from its army is naturally of interest to India, especially since its total military posture, force structure and strategy is so India-centric. If the decision to reduce nearly ten per cent of its land forces was based on reduced threat perceptions from India, then we must welcome such a change. Even if the move was meant to be a symbolic one, linked in even an oblique manner to the ongoing attempt at reducing tensions between the two countries, it would be welcome. The proposed cuts would be even more welcome if they were to be implemented from the army cadres manning the ISI.But the official announcement does not provide any scope for optimism in this direction. In fact, what we are promised is a more “lethal” army. Islamabad officially claims that this step would “allow sizeable savings in funds”. The media in Pakistan has already expressed great optimism that this reduction in military expenditure would release substantive funds for human development that has suffered for decades due to the extremely high levels of of national resources being diverted for military purposes. But if the Pakistan army could cut its strength and devote the resources released for social welfare, one wonders why it has taken it so long to discover the virtues of such a move.The problem is that there is no way of validating the claim of the cut back, since there is simply no transparency in Pakistan’s defence budget. What is generally known is that purchases of major weapon systems are all funded from outside the defence budget. The timing of the move indicates that this is being done under IMF pressures to indicate that Islamabad is serious about curbing military spending, which has been one of the major conditions for the IMF to provide debt relief and further loans. Every year, for the past three years, Pakistan has come up with “solutions” to bypass these pressures. The IMF, which once was believed to have charged the Pakistan government with fudging its defence expenditure figures, may of course be satisfied with such cosmetics now, in view of the frontline status Pakistan enjoys in the US war on terrorism. What the international community, and the financial institutions that are underwriting Pakistan’s military spending, should seriously seek is greater transparency in defence budgets, at least to the levels that have existed in India for decades. India should also seek this as part of bilateral confidence building measures.
