No doubt the suggestion is motivated by a pious desire to see that both growth and development supplement each other and that, while unproductive expenditures are curtailed, distributive justice percolates through grassroots level to make growth more meaningful.

The suggestion has lot of merit and the underlying motivations are well meaning and just. This ought to be considered dispassionately, without making political capital out of the defence-development dichotomy. It is an unfortunate reflection of our psyche, which is motivated by our heart rather than our head when we undertake discourses on national issues. Thus, those that suggest reduction in defense expenditure cannot do so without having ill motives ascribed to their pronouncements. Rationality, rather than emotion, should guide our approach to any issue, most of all the issue of national defense.

It has also been our experience that defence is always made the target when it comes to the question of tightening our belts. The reason for suggesting 'salami slices' of the defence outlay is primarily because of the perception of 'unproductivity' of the defence sector, a speculation that is perhaps tenuous because, while the input in defence is tangible, there is no conventional pricing mechanism to ascertain the value of the defence output.

Be that as it may, the suggestion to cut defence outlay contains some implied assumptions. Apart from the fact that the police force needs to be beefed up, implied in the suggestion is that the defence outlay is in excess of the requirements of the defence which merits reduction. Also implied is the assumption that while maintaining the expected level of competency in mission fulfilment, the defence sector can withstand the cut.

One could not agree more with the suggestions that the police force needs improvement. If their efficiency has to be improved they will have to be given the necessary resources, both infrastructural as well as technical. Their pecuniary conditions will have to be improved so that the compulsion of supplementing their income through other means is reduced, and that they are motivated enough to uphold the law and not circumvent it. This will need money, of course. But should it be the defence sector that ought to part with its share?

It is not the purpose of this article to delve into various facets of defencedevelopemnt dilemma or go into the findings of various studies of defence economics. Suffice it to say that security and by implication defence is a vital and very relevant part of any nation. The upkeep of a military force, dedicated to ensuring the security of a nation, is a vital component of any national agenda and budget. This conception holds true in the case of Bangladesh also. A standing military force, of whatever size, is an indispensable adjunct of a state, although its shape, size and composition may be open to debate.

It is also true that it is getting more and more expensive to maintain a military, and as technology gains more relevance as a determinant of military efficiency, it will be even more so. It is also true that a taka saved from an unproductive expenditure is a taka for the soft, social sectors. However arguments that defence is an unproductive sector is far from convincing.

Budgeting a nation's defence outlay is an intricate process because defence capability cannot be determined unilaterally. Capability is a relational phenomenon, related to threat, estimation of which constitutes the major input in defence spending. Budgeting deterrence, which is precisely the purpose of defence, raises the question of how much defence is enough defence? While there is a propensity of overstating requirements by defence planners, it is only natural for skeptical taxpayers to question the prudence of certain expenditures.

There has never been an open and informed debate in Bangladesh as to whether the size and the budget is justifiable and adequate in enabling the military to fulfil its designated role, and whether at the end of the day the nation is getting value for its money. The reasons that the military is the butt of all criticism are its size and cost, including opportunity cost, relative to its threat and capability. All these issues must be examined critically and dispassionately. The fact that defence is more or less a non-substitutable product with other commodities/services of the economy the natural question to ask is, what should be the minimum threshold expenditure on defence?

Defense and indeed the security of a country are too important to be left to the novices and the uninformed. Many of the comments regarding defense budget stem from asymmetry of information and lack of comprehension of the matter. Perhaps it is time that there was a debate on the whole issue a debate that should involve the current civilian as well as military leadership, economists and retired military officers.

However, to divest Defense to provide for additional fund for the police is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. One is not certain if the benefit to Paul would not be to the detriment of Peter.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star