Last year, India decided on a massive 34% increase year-over-year in its defense spending. Here are some frequently asked questions and answers about this dramatic move that puts India among the world's biggest spenders on defense.
Q1: How much does India really spend on defense?
A1: On paper, India spends $32.7 billion, about 3% of its GDP on defense, after an increase of 34% for 2010.
In reality, India spends closer to 3.5% of its GDP on defense.
Here's what Col.(Retd) Pavan Nair of the Indian Army has to say about it in a recent guest post on Haq's Musings:
India's own specified limit of 3% has been observed only by excluding several items like the cost of the MoD and the expenditure on military pensions which by itself amounts to 15% of the total defense outlay. Several other items like the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry (JAKLI, a regular regiment of the army consisting of thirteen battalions) and the Coast Guard are also excluded. A substantial part of the cost of the nuclear arsenal and allied systems is excluded. All para-military forces including the ones directly involved in border management are excluded. The Parliamentary Committee on Defense spends most of its time on personnel matters and resolving issues of protocol between the service chiefs and the defense secretary. The Committee looks at DE but beyond stating that DE should be pegged at 3% of GDP, it has nothing substantial to contribute. Clearly, parliamentary oversight and control seems to be missing. For several years, DE in aggregate has crossed 3% of GDP.
Pakistan spends about $4.3 billion annually, less than 3% of its GDP, and there has been no real increase year-over-year in 2010. There was a 10.15 per cent nominal increase from Rs 311.303 billion revised defense budget for 2009-2010. In real terms, however, it represents a decrease because inflation in Pakistan exceeds nominal increase in defense. Pakistan’s defense allocation does not include foreign assistance, which is expected add about a billion dollars to defense spending for operations against Taliban insurgents. The aggregate $5.5 billion of military spending by Pakistan accounts for about 3% of its $ 175 billion GDP.
“The war on terror has already cost us over $35 billion since 2001-02. We now face the prospects of incurring huge expenditure on account of counter-insurgency,” according to Pakistan's deputy finance minister Hina Rabbani Khar.
Q2: Doesn't India need to spend more on defense to fight the terrorists in the region?
A2: The military brass in India used the Mumbai attacks in late 2008 to argue for and win a 34% increase in defense budget. But terrorism is just an excuse by Indian military to get large funds and buy expensive cold war era weapons which are useless against the asymmetrical threat from the terrorists any way. It lines the pockets of the arms dealers (and a few corrupt generals and officials) without increasing India's security against potential terror attacks.
The 34% increase can not be explained by Indian military pay hikes either, given India's huge weapons' shopping list and its status as one of the biggest importers of military hardware in the world. The real aim is to intimidate India's neighbors, and assert India's hegemony. But it won't work as long as India has serious challenges of poverty, illiteracy, hunger, social inequity and multiple insurgencies at home by its most impoverished citizens.
Q3: Won't India just grow out of poverty, hunger, illiteracy through rapid economic expansion of its economy?
A3: Over a decade of rapid economic growth in India has done little to help its poor, hungry and illiterate population.
India has miserably failed to use a period of high economic growth to lift tens of millions of people out of poverty, falling far short of China’s record in protecting its population from the ravages of chronic hunger, United Nations officials said recently. In 2008, British Development Minister Alexander contrasted the rapid growth in China with India's economic success - highlighting government figures that showed the number of poor people had dropped in the one-party communist state by 70% since 1990 but had risen in the world's biggest democracy by 5%.
In the context of unprecedented economic growth (9-10 percent annually) and lack of national food security, over 60 percent of Indian children are wasted, stunted, underweight or a combination of the above. As a result, India ranks number 62 along with Bangladesh at 67 in the PHI (Poverty Hunger Index)ranking out of a total of 81 countries. Both nations are included among the low performing countries in progress towards MDG1 (Millennium Development Goals) with countries such as Nepal (number 58), Ethiopia (number 60), or Zimbabwe (number 74).
Ranked at 45 on PHI index, Pakistan is well ahead of India at number 62, and it is included in the medium performing countries. PHI is a new composite indicator – the Poverty and Hunger Index (PHI) – developed to measure countries’ performance towards achieving MDG1 on halving poverty and hunger by 2015. The PHI combines all five official MDG1 indicators, including a) the proportion of population living on less than US$ 1/day, b) poverty gap ratio, c) share of the poorest quintile in national income or consumption, d) prevalence of underweight in children under five years of age, and d) the proportion of population undernourished.
Q4: Why can't India do both: Increase defense spending and reduce poverty, illiteracy, hunger and disease?
A4: Defense spending should not be a sacred cow. Huge increases shouldn't get approved with little or no debate, and there should be much greater oversight of how it's spent.
It needs to be discussed and debated rationally in the parliament and the media.
What I find is that there is more debate and discussion in Pakistan on defense spending than there is in India, in spite of the fact Pakistan is fighting a war against determined insurgents in the North West.
In spite of its many other urgent issues like access to food, education and health care, it's a shame that a huge 34% boost in defense budget got approved in India without much serious discussion. A similar dramatic increase in Pakistan would have elicited howls of protest and loud demands to curtail it.
Q5: Why should there be any discussion or debate in India on defense budgets when there is consensus among all political parties that military spending should increase?
A5: That may be a good explanation of lack of debate, but the size of the increase at 34% year over year should be too big to slide through parliament without much scrutiny. And it's strange that there is no such consensus on similar spending increases on food, health care, education and poverty alleviation where India lags behind many of its neighbors.
In 2008, Indian Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed acknowledged that India is worse than Bangladesh and Pakistan when it comes to nourishment and is showing little improvement.
Speaking at a conference on "Malnutrition an emergency: what it costs the nation", she said even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during interactions with the Planning Commission has described malnourishment as the "blackest mark".
"I should not compare. But countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are better," she said. The conference was organized last year by the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Ministry of Development of Northeastern Region.
According to India's Family Health Survey, almost 46 percent of children under the age of three are undernourished - an improvement of just one percent in the last seven years. This is only a shade better than Sub-Saharan Africa where about 35 percent of children are malnourished.
Unlike Indian military which got 34% increase this year, there is no one talking about a similar spending increase for human development in a nation that is slipping to lower ranks in human development. In fact, the latest Human Development Report for 2009 shows that all major South Asian nations have slipped further down relative to other regions of the world. Pakistan's HDI ranking dropped 3 places from 138 last year to 141 this year, and India slipped six places from 128 in 2008 to 134 this year.
The total per-capita expenditure on health (central as well as state expenditure) is about a third of the per-capita expenditure on defense in India. This low level of funding is the prime reason for poor health parameters which in turn keeps a large proportion of the population in perpetual debt and poverty. The UN millennium development goals pertaining to mortality rates and poverty are not likely to be achieved mainly on account of poor spending and delivery in the health sector. The allocation for federal spending on health in the current year is Rs 22,641 crores or merely 0.4% of GDP.
Q6: Why Is the Indian defense spending any of this blogger's business?
A6: India's military spending directly affects the entire south Asian region. It increases the threat perception in the neighborhood, particularly when the Indian military brass engages in threatening rhetoric in the midst of its huge arms buildup. It distorts the spending priorities of Pakistan, a smaller neighbor which was invaded and divided by India in 1971.
Recently, Lt-General A S Lamba of Indian Army has been quoted by the Indian media as boasting about a "massive thrust into Rawalpindi to quiet Pakistanis within 48 hours of the start of assault." Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor has said India is ready for a “the successful firming-up of the cold start strategy (to be able to go to war promptly) in the multiple fronts against multiple different militias at the same time.” General Kapoor has talked about taking on China and Pakistan at the same time.
India has over 6000 tanks, and it is inconceivable that these tanks will roll over the Himalayas to invade China. These tanks are meant to invade Pakistan in the plains of Punjab and the deserts of Sind. Indian Army has 33 infantry divisions. Twenty-four are on Pakistan borders. It has three armored divisions, all three are positioned near Pakistan borders. There are three mechanized divisions in India, all three are on Pakistan borders.
Related Links:
South Asia Slipping in Human Development
India's Defense Budget: Guns Versus Butter
Indian Military Brass Challenges China and Pakistan
India's Defense Spending: Facts Beyond Figures
Pakistan's Defense Budget
World's Top Arms Importers
PHI Poverty Hunger Index
Photo Quiz: What is this guy doing?
9 hours ago
17 comments:
And after all this expenditure, not a square inch of lost territory gained - not now nor these past 60 odd years. YET some years ago the top officer cadre of the Armed Forces engaged the services of a private consultant (MARG?) to push for a pay hike to bring them on par with the high flyers of the private sector.
For all this sort of thing, millions of poor have remained poor and will continue to do so.
I know objectivity was never your strong point, but this takes the cake
"It distorts the spending priorities of Pakistan, a smaller neighbor which was invaded and divided by India in 1971. "
So I guess killing of 3 million East Pakistanis from Mar 1971 to Dec 1971 was something which had no bearing on 10 million East Pakistanis flooding into india as refugees and finally Dec 16 1971.
DC: "So I guess killing of 3 million East Pakistanis from Mar 1971 to Dec 1971 was something which had no bearing on 10 million East Pakistanis flooding into india as refugees and finally Dec 16 1971."
You are repeating the oft-repeated Indian war myths that have been thoroughly discredited by many independent researchers about the events, the numbers and the multiple culprits.
But clearly the behavior of the West Pak politicians and the miltary was a contributing factor, but not the deciding factor in the break-up of Pakistan. The Indian invasion is what actually broke up Pakistan.
Many nations, including US and Nigeria, have fought extended and bloody civil wars that were eventually settled without division. The difference was the absence of foreign invaders.
@Riaz,
I bet the Bengalis whose Mothers and Daughters were raped by Pakistan army Jawans would disagree with you.
Riaz,
One piece of advice: Stop your India obsession and concentrate on establishing democracy in Pakistan and eradication of Intolerance which is giving rise to.. Correction: which has given rise to Terrorism. 3000 people died in Pakistan last year. Guess who killed them? Certainly not the arms India is buying from all over the world but your own citizens...
You would serve your country better by writing articles on how Pakistan got into this mess.
Write about why even after sixty-god-damned-years Pakistan doesn't have democratic institutions despite the supreme leader of newly born Pakistan craving for Westminster style democracy.
Write about why Pakistani crickets "bite the ball"(its a term I've coined which means cheating even though you know there is a high possibility that you will be caught with your pants down).
Stop obsessing about India whether you like it or not is the fastest growing democracy in the world. We have problems but we are working on them.
Stop writing the same thing again and again in different styles and quoting the same "sources".
Think about what your country needs right now and write about that. Writing a zillion times about how much India spends on Defence is NOT going to help Pakistan in anyway. Infact, people of which country have commited acts of terror in Pakistan? The answer is Pakistanis themselves are their worst villains.
"The Indian invasion is what actually broke up Pakistan. "
This part is true, but the question is, why wouldn't india invade if 10 million East Pakistanis flood to their country. In fact entire East Pakistan would have flooded if the war didn't happen.
India had full right to intervene once it has to feed those 10 million.
anoop: "I bet the Bengalis whose Mothers and Daughters were raped by Pakistan army Jawans would disagree with you."
And the survivors and the families of the victims of Indian sponsored, trained and equipped Mukti Bahini terrorists would strongly disagree with you!
The distortions such as the identity of the Jessore massacre of non-Bengalis (investigated by Sarmila Bose), and ignoring and then rewarding the killings by thugs like Kader "Tiger" Siddiqui have characterized the highly slanted accounts of the civil war in East Pakistan that claimed victims of all ethnicities, religions and opinions.
Dr. Stranglove, a Bengali blogger challenged Sarmila Bose as follows:
"To try to bolster her argument, she claims that the size of the Pakistani army in Bangladesh was only 34,000 men. Then she asserts: "For an army of 34,000 to rape on this scale in eight or nine months (while fighting insurgency, guerrilla war and an invasion by India), each would-be perpetrator would have had to commit rape at an incredible rate."
I find Bose's arguments, based on her more accurate numbers of Pak military personnel, far more persuasive. The total number of POWs taken by India was about 90,000. No more than half these were military personnel. I know it because one of my relatives was a civilian POW, part of the large civilian bureaucracy in East Pakistan.
I have heard tales of horror from innocent civilian Bengalis and Biharis who fled East Pakistan because of the civil war involving Pakistani military and indiscriminate attacks by Mukti Bahini murderers and terrorists trained by the Indian RAW and military, all of whom now pose as liberators. Some of them, such as Kader Siddiqui, have been involved in rebellions and crimes against Bengalis since 1971.
I think you, unlike Bose, have bought into a highly exaggerated narrative about Bangladesh without questioning any of the so-called "nationalists" claims.
The story of a former colleague of mine from Bangladesh says a lot about the atrocities committed in East Pakistan by all sides. His father was picked up by Pakistan Army and was never seen again, presumably killed by Pak military. His brother then joined Mukti Bahini, fought Pakistan Army, and then he was himself killed by fellow Mukti fighters in front of his brother (my colleagues) and his mother who begged for him to be spared.
DC: "why wouldn't india invade if 10 million East Pakistanis flood to their country. In fact entire East Pakistan would have flooded if the war didn't happen."
Every war, including the civil war in East Pakistan, creates refugees, as has been observed recently in Swat and South Waziristan.
The civil war in East Pakistan was engineered by Indians and RAW agents through their sponsorship of Mukti Bahini, with the purpose of creating a refugee problem, and then exploiting it to the max with media propaganda and finally direct invasion.
anoop: "One piece of advice: Stop your India obsession and concentrate on establishing democracy in Pakistan"
Your reading of my blog and your comments are highly selective, ignoring my frequent and strong criticisms of Pakistan.
I think Indian democracy is a cruel hoax perpetrated on the largest population of poor, hungry and illiterate people in the world. The biggest beneficiaries of Indian democracy are a small percent of population in living in major urban centers. The vast majority of Indians are being exploited to create wealth for the few, as obvious from the horrible social indicators for India.
Just look at the so called Operation Green Hunt against Maoists described as follows by the Hindu<:
"Away from the gaze of the media and the judiciary, the adivasis of Bastar are paying a heavy price … for just being there. "
Last year, British writer William Dalrymple described India's insurgencies as "no less serious" than the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan.
"Every war, including the civil war in East Pakistan, creates refugees, as has been observed recently in Swat and South Waziristan.
So, does that justify India forced to recv 10 million refugees from East Pakistan and DO NOTHING TO STOP IT.
"
The civil war in East Pakistan was engineered by Indians and RAW agents through their sponsorship of Mukti Bahini, "
Then India and RAW must have sponsored Yahah Khan and Bhutto to reject the election result where AL won and Mujibur won to become the PM. But hey west Pakistanis can not tolerate a bengali ruling over them. Bangladesh was formed on Mar 25 1971 itself (long before India got involved) when Mujibur fed up with West Pakistan's attitude declared that East pak is a separate nation. It was then Yahaya Khan decided to have operation searchlight which killed 3 million bengalis.
Before Blaming India and RAW accept what created the discontentment and eventually the genocide.
Here's a link about poverty in India - which was the headlines from Time of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-financial-crisis-impact-Indias-poor-grew-by-34-mn/articleshow/5553859.cms
I dont know if defense budgets can be sacrificed when India and Pakistan have a fundamental problem of hate based on how they think each side is 'correct' in their viewpoint.
However the above link is a shameful reminder for both countries of the levels of poverty which we tolerate among our people. But I doubt if anything will shame us into solving our real problems - we still have the get over our superficial problems of hate based on religion, class and caste.
Regarding the comment where you say India is starving its people to achieve military might. You are wrong on many aspects. You dont lower your defences against a threat to your existence just because many in your territory live unprivileged lives. Besides, Pakistan still harps on Kashmir even after suffering such great loss(es). Is it not true that Kashmir was responsible for end of Jinnah's idea of Pakistan?? But, has Pakistan left the issue to pursue its development?? No..
Why in that case should we lower our military preparedness? You may see a hike of 34% but only 2.5% of GDP is allocated to defence unlike in Pakistan where the percentage is more than 3% of GDP. So, if you want to make a case there is a better case to be made for Pakistan than India which is growing as the fastest Democracy in the world. Pakistan has been living beyond its means for years now. It wants to have Nuclear weapons jewelry on its back but is not shamed to beg for assistance from Major Powers. When the Major powers decide to stop giving money to splurge on its expensive tastes Pakistan's economy stagnates like it did in the 1990's. Economically Pakistan stagnated during those 10 years Pakistan didnt get aid. The economy is weaker still now. So, Pakistan should cut its defence expenditure instead of hiking it. India can afford it because being a bigger country it has bigger responsibilities and has a very bright future when compared to ailing Pakistan.
US has agreed to provide 7.5 Billion,an unprecedented amount,to Pakistan. And, Pakistan still insists that it needs to increase its defence budget instead of diverting the money to aid its ailing economy. Atleast in the case of India its not begging around the world to sponsor its defence! We are aid givers now. That was our aim when we got independence 60 years ago to develop ourselves to an extent to stop receiving aid and become aid givers. Has there been any goal for Pakistan since its creation??
India is stated to be the next big thing and has to have certain kind of Defence that middle level power countries like Pakistan cannot even dream of. So in this scenario your argument doesn't make any sense.
anoop:"Regarding the comment where you say India is starving its people to achieve military might. You are wrong on many aspects. You dont lower your defences against a threat to your existence just because many in your territory live unprivileged lives."
You are just as prone to misinformation and propaganda as the rest of Indians, including legislators.
India's real defense expenditures are much more than the $30 billion figure you see in the budget, because this figure excludes India's considerable nuclear arsenal, cost of maintaining Kashmir occupation, and the cost of military pensions, etc.
The other issue that is not discussed is whether the expensive cold-war era weapons really add to India's security. As an example, India is spending over a billion dollars on an old Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, while Russians themselves are buying cheaper and more effective Mistral warships from France.
You should read a detailed discussion of India's defense spending by retired Col. Pavan Nair of the Indian Army that I published on this blog.
If there was a serious discussion and debate on 34% hike and big ticket items in Indian parliament and the media, I think the outcome would have been different and better for the Indian people.
Here are excerpts from WSJ story on US arms deals with India and Pakistan:
The U.S. has made billions of dollars in weapons deals with India, which is in the midst of a five-year, $50 billion push to modernize its military.
At the same time, American military aid to Pakistan stands to nearly double next year, allowing Islamabad to acquire more U.S.-made helicopters, night-vision goggles and other military equipment. The aid has made it easier for Pakistan to ramp up its fight against militants on the Afghan border, as the U.S. tries to convince Islamabad that its biggest security threat is within the country, not in India.
During a late January trip to Islamabad, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. would for the first time give Pakistan a dozen surveillance drones, a longstanding Pakistani request.
------------
Washington's relationships with the two nations are very different. India, which is wealthier and larger than its neighbor, pays for weapons purchases with its own funds. Pakistan, by contrast, uses American grants to fund most of its arms purchases. A new U.S. counterinsurgency assistance fund for Pakistan is slated to increase from $700 million in fiscal year 2010 to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2011.
"We do straight commercial deals with India, while Pakistan effectively uses the money we give them to buy our equipment," said a U.S. official who works with the two countries. "But we think that's ultimately in our national interest because it makes the Pakistanis more capable of dealing with their homegrown terrorists."
India is one of the largest buyers of foreign-made munitions, with a long shopping list which includes warships, fighter jets, tanks and other weapons. Its defense budget is $30 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, a 70% increase from five years ago. The country is preparing its military to deal with multiple potential threats, including conflict with Pakistan. Tensions have recently flared between India and China over territorial claims along their border. China defeated India in a short war in 1962.
"For 2010 and 2011, India could well be the most important market in the world for defense contractors looking to make foreign military sales," said Tom Captain, the vice chairman of Deloitte LLP's aerospace and defense practice.
Russia has been India's main source of military hardware for decades, supplying about 70% of equipment now in use. Moscow is working to keep that position, with talks ongoing to sell India 29 MiG-29K carrier-borne jet fighters, according to an Indian Defense Ministry spokesman.
The Obama administration is trying to persuade New Delhi to buy American jet fighters instead, a shift White House officials say would lead to closer military and political relations between India and the U.S. It would also be a bonanza for U.S. defense contractors, and has dispatched senior officials such as Mr. Gates to New Delhi to deliver the message that Washington hopes India will choose American defense firms for major purchases in the years ahead.
Shortly after a late January visit by Mr. Gates—on the same tour that took him to Islamabad—In late January, the administration signed off on India's request to purchase 145 U.S.-made howitzers, a $647 million deal.Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Mr. Gates's visit didn't affect the substance or timing of the howitzer purchase.
That came days after India formally expressed its intent to purchase 10 cargo transport aircraft from Boeing Co. in a deal analysts say could be worth more than $2 billion. Last year, India spent $2.1 billion on eight Boeing long-range Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft for the Indian navy.
India's 2010-2011 budget is up another 8.13 percent on top of the 34% increase in 2009-2010, according to Indiaserver.com.
India's defence expenditure has been raised to Rs.147,344 crore (Rs.1.47 trillion/$32 billion) for 2010-11, up 8.13 percent from the revised estimates of the previous fiscal, in the budget presented by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee in the Lok Sabha Friday.
"Secure borders and security of life and property fosters development. I propose to increase the allocation for defence to Rs.147,344 crore. This would include Rs.60,000 crore for capital expenditure," Mukherjee said in his budget speech.
"Needless to say, any additional requirement for the security of the nation will be provided for," he added.
Defence Minister A.K. Antony declined to comment on the allocations.
Though the expenditure has been hiked by Rs.11,080 crore, in real terms, however, the hike works out to only 3.98 percent as Rs.141,703 crore had been originally allocated for 2009-10 but this was later revised to Rs.136,264 crore.
The allocation for 2010-11 works out to 11 percent of India's Rs.11,08,749 crore budget for the fiscal, down one percent from the previous year
The capital expenditure of Rs.60,000 crore is higher by Rs.5,176 crore than the Rs.54,824 crore originally allocated for the previous fiscal but Rs.7,000 crore of this was returned as unspent. A similar amount was returned in 2008-09.
As in the past, the 1.2 million-strong Indian Army has been granted the lion's share, but at Rs.57,326 crore this is lower by Rs.1,322 from the Rs.58,648 crore originally allocated for 2009-10, Rs.740 crore of which was returned.
The Indian Navy has been allocated Rs.9,329 crore, Rs.1,007 crore more than the Rs.8,322 that was allocated for the previous fiscal which was later raised to Rs.9,312 crore. In real terms, the raise amounts to just Rs.17 crore.
In the case of the Indian Air Force, its allocation of Rs.15,210 crore is Rs.992 crore higher than the Rs.14,318 allocated for the previous fiscal that was later raised to Rs.14,681.
The ordnance factories are perhaps the biggest losers. Originally allocated Rs.832 crore for the previous fiscal, this was raised to Rs.2,187 crore and has now been pegged at Rs.246 crore for 2010-11, a reduction of Rs.1,941 crore or 88 percent.
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has got a hike of Rs.881 crore to Rs.5,230 crore from its revised allocation of Rs.4,349 crore in the previous fiscal.
China's is reporting 7.5% increase in Chinese defense budget:
China plans to increase its defense budget by 7.5 percent in 2010, only about half of last year's planned growth of 14.9 percent, a parliament spokesman said here on Thursday.
The planned defense budget is 532.115 billion yuan (about 78 billion U.S. dollars), a rise of about 37 billion yuan from last year's defense expenditure, Li Zhaoxing, spokesman for the annual session of the National People's Congress (NPC), told a press conference.
Defense spending would account for 6.4 percent of the country's total fiscal expenditure in 2010, the same with last year, he said.
However, Li stressed that the figures would not be final until the budget plan is approved at the NPC annual session due to open in Beijing on Friday.
It is the first time for China's defense budget growth rate to drop to less than 10 percent in recent years which saw a row of consecutive double-digit increases.
This year's increased budget will be mainly be spent to support the reform of China's military and improve its capability to deal with varied threats and complete diversified tasks, Li said.
Part of the money will also be used to raise the living standards of servicemen, he said.
China has always taken the road of peaceful development and keep in line with the defensive national defense policy, Li said.
Taking into account China's large population, its vast territory, and its long coastline, the country's defense budget is "comparatively low," according to the former Foreign Minister.
"China's defense expenditure in recent years accounted for about 1.4 percent of its GDP," he said, adding that the ratio was four percent for the United States, and more than two percent for the United Kingdom, France and Russia.
He said China has been continuously raising its military transparency by submitting defense budgets to the NPC annual sessions for approval, issuing white papers every two years on its national defense, and establishing a spokesperson system and websites for its Defense Ministry.
Here's an opinion from Forbes India special about India's next ten years:
was considerable hoopla when the Indian economy crossed the trillion dollar mark for the first time three years ago. Over the next 10 to 15 years, it is now almost inevitable that our economy will touch $3 trillion. Last week, I had an interesting chat with K.V. Kamath, ICICI Bank’s non-executive chairman, about the implications of such phenomenal growth. Perhaps with the exception of China, nowhere in the world has one seen such a large mass of people go through a period of unprecedented growth. Even though China’s march began in 1978, the real boom in that economy started in 2000 and lasted for more than 10 years. During this period, per capita incomes have trebled there.
On the other hand, India began its charge in 1991. And by 2025, per capita incomes are likely to move up three fold from the current base of about $1,000. Yet Kamath raised a significant question: How much do we really know what happens to a society that goes through such rapid change? China could have offered some clues, but no one is sure whether this transformation has been credibly recorded there. Now, when India steps up for her moment in history, it’ll perhaps offer a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for researchers and media to chronicle this massive surge.
Set against the backdrop of last week’s Union Budget, that’s exactly what this special edition attempts to do. Associate Editor Dinesh Narayanan and Principal Correspondent Udit Misra lay out the big challenges facing the country over the next decade. Their essay picks up clues from the Budget speech and then focusses our attention on four hot-button issues that will keep our policy-makers awake at night.
We then pick up the four big bets that this government has made — education, homeland security, climate change and roads — and look at how each minister in charge is using a new approach to drive his agenda.
Finally, the concept of inclusive growth suggests that the benefits of development must touch all our states in ample measure. Yet in states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, the human development indices are almost as bad as that of African countries. So why can’t we learn to replicate the success in one state in another? We’ve picked out two important stories of transformation that offer critical lessons. Associate Editor Malini Goyal’s family quit Bihar more than a decade ago. Quietly but surely, under Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, Bihar has undergone a huge upheaval for the past four years. Malini returns to her home state to discover why good governance can make a difference even in a seemingly hopeless situation. Make sure you read her personal account on page 68.
The agricultural crisis has tormented the minds of policymakers and farmers alike. Some weeks ago, we found the answers in unexpected quarters: The state of Gujarat. In the last few years, Gujarat’s agrarian sector has grown at three times the national average. Consulting Editor R.N. Bhaskar travels to the hotspot to bring you an amazing story of agricultural revival. It underscores my belief that we don’t need new solutions. All we need is political will and foresight.
Post a Comment