Can't we make our defence budget more transparent?

This year, the finance minister, in keeping with the practice that he started last year in that -- while in 2004 he did us the favour of at least mentioning the lump sum allocation for defence -- did not bother to even mention the defence allocation, not to speak of the breakdown under various heads, nor even the allocation made for the three services.

The only assumption that one can make from this is that either the defence budget merits very little importance to feature in the minister's remarks or that he would rather not engage in any discussion on the matter by giving out the details of allocation. On both counts he has gravely erred. Neither in a cash strapped country like ours can we keep from the public the knowledge of how their money is spent, nor can defence be such an 'unimportant' sector not to merit any mention in the finance minister's budget speech. Both the defence and the money spent for it must be a matter for the public to be familiar with. Or perhaps even the finance minister is not aware of the details and the government will perhaps play it by ear as and when the question of detail expenditures in various heads arises. Nothing can be more bizarre than this.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Such a policy of the government has generated all sorts of comments that could have been avoided. Knowing fully well that the defence and defence spending in our country is a much talked about issue, merely mention of a lump sum allotment has engendered more criticism and speculative comments that need not have come up at all had the government been a bit more transparent in laying out the defence expenditure. And the critics, in particular those who deal with the subject of defence and development, cannot be blamed for ascribing all sorts of motives to the government for resorting to this way of describing the defence budget. Regrettably, it is the armed forces that has to bear the brunt of the criticism whereas one can say with some degree of certainty that a modicum of budgeting exercise is done at the service headquarters to meet the expenditures under several heads.

There is, however, a general diminution of the argument against having a military at all and one notices, very happily, that the number of those that term it as a non-productive entity, is gradually reducing, particularly after the military's contribution to the foreign exchange coffer from its UN peacekeeping operations. But that does not detract from the imperative of having a detail and transparent defence allocation in the budget for the public representatives in the parliament to discuss. While one can understand the need for confidentiality in this matter there is no rationale that can justify the way the military budget finds mention in the main budget documents.

There are basically two aspect of the defence expenditure that one is generally faced with. One is the actual size of the military budget and the other is the rationale behind the size of the budget.

The size of the military budget, because of the way it is presented, naturally lends itself to criticism. It would be nice to know not only the breakdown of allotments sector wise but also some indication as to what has necessitated the increase or decrease in the sectoral allotments would help understand the planning rationale, and the direction that the military is taking. However, one is not sure whether the six percent increase in the defence allocation this year has been made to keep up with the inflation or for any specific expenditure. Neither the finance minister's speech nor the budget documents make one of the important information available to the public. Thus, when the nation is hard pressed to make both ends meet, even necessary expenditures that remain shrouded in mystery is bound to be viewed with a degree of scepticism.

While there may not be enough grounds to question the 'why' there is certainly a need to know the 'how' of the military expenditure. When detail figures are not provided there is always the apprehension in the public mind that the fungiblity of the military budget will be exploited, which in other words imply financial indiscipline. Absence of details and thus the lack of transparency always provide plenty of scope for improper use of military funds; and the public cannot be faulted for this perception, even if that may not be so in reality. That is why expenditures for the military must be well defined and follow a definite plan of acquisition particularly of weapon system. Otherwise, matters will be dragged to the court as had happened in the case of purchase of Mig-29s, or it would cause severe embarrassment to the service chiefs as was in the case of our air chief who got his numbers horribly mixed up in the case of purchase of F-7s.

Our acquisitions must never be externally induced but dictated by strategic and tactical requirement of the forces. This had not been the case, as would be evident from the propensity to go for new systems with every new regime. Lack of continuity in procurement gives us a good indication of the unplanned expenditures. That is not to suggest for a moment that a particular weapon system is not necessary. Expenditure under a well argued plan would allow the services to conduct a proper budgeting exercise and the expenditures could be spread out over a period of years thus reducing the pressure on the economy.

Not all the expenditures in the military budget need to be laid out in detail, the reasons for which are well understood. But more transparency must be accorded to the defence budget and the major heads must be made public through the budget documents. This is essential not only to justify defence expenditure but also to put an end to controversy and criticism in the allotment procedures.

The author is editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.