By Qamar Bashir
Pakistan’s decision to allocate PKR 3.01 trillion to defence in the federal budget for 2026-27 has reignited an old debate. Should a country facing economic constraints devote such a large portion of its national resources to defence, or should those resources be redirected toward education, healthcare, infrastructure, research, agriculture, transportation, and human development?
At first glance, the answer appears obvious. Nations create wealth through productive economies, educated citizens, scientific innovation, modern infrastructure, and efficient governance. Schools produce skilled workers. Universities create scientists and innovators. Roads, railways, ports, and energy systems facilitate commerce. Agriculture feeds the nation and generates exports. Businesses create jobs and prosperity.
No serious observer would deny the importance of these sectors. Pakistan’s railway network requires modernization. Its educational institutions need greater investment. Scientific research, technology development, healthcare, public transportation, and agricultural productivity all deserve significantly larger allocations than they currently receive.
Yet history repeatedly teaches a harsh lesson: prosperity without security is fragile, and development without sovereignty can vanish overnight.
This reality explains why Pakistan increased its defence budget by nearly 16 percent, raising military spending from PKR 2.59 trillion to PKR 3.01 trillion. The allocation includes PKR 967.5 billion for employee-related expenses, PKR 925.8 billion for physical assets and modernization, PKR 743.4 billion for operating expenditures, and PKR 363.1 billion for civil works. Military pensions, budgeted separately, amount to another PKR 822 billion.
Critics argue that Pakistan can scarcely afford such expenditures. They point to debt servicing, IMF obligations, fiscal constraints, and the urgent needs of the civilian sector. They contend that every additional rupee allocated to defence is a rupee unavailable for schools, hospitals, technology parks, dams, transport networks, and industrial development.
Their argument is neither irrational nor unpatriotic. It is grounded in a legitimate concern for Pakistan’s economic future. However, the events of recent years have fundamentally altered the national conversation.
The brief but intense India-Pakistan military confrontation of May 2025 forced many Pakistanis to re-evaluate their assumptions about national security. Regardless of competing narratives about the conflict, one fact is beyond dispute: two nuclear-armed nations stood perilously close to a broader confrontation.
Pakistan and independent sources maintain that Pakistan armed forces inflicted immense military losses on India during the conflict. India disputes many of these claims. India’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan acknowledged that Indian aircraft were lost during the conflict.
U.S. President Donald Trump subsequently referred to “seven brand new, beautiful planes” being shot down during the confrontation. Reports attributed to Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić suggested that Chinese satellite imagery showed damage to a radar component associated with an Indian S-400 air defence battery.
The precise details will continue to be debated by military historians and analysts. Yet many Pakistanis drew a broader lesson from the conflict. They concluded that military effectiveness cannot be measured solely by budget size.
The disparity between Indian and Pakistani defence spending is enormous. India’s defence budget stands at approximately USD 86 billion, nearly eight times larger than Pakistan’s allocation of about USD 10.8 billion. India’s capital modernization budget alone exceeds Pakistan’s entire military budget. In terms of economic size, industrial capacity, and financial resources, the gap remains substantial.
Yet Pakistan’s security planners have never sought to match India tank for tank, aircraft for aircraft, or dollar for dollar. Such a strategy would be economically impossible. Instead, Pakistan has historically relied on professional competence, strategic planning, force multipliers, technological adaptation, and deterrence. For many Pakistanis, the May conflict reinforced confidence in this approach.
The debate over defence spending therefore changed fundamentally. Before the conflict, many citizens viewed military expenditure primarily through an economic lens. After the conflict, increasing numbers began viewing defence spending as the insurance premium required to preserve national sovereignty.
Freedom, independence, dignity, honor, and self-respect do not appear in national accounting ledgers. They cannot be measured in rupees or dollars. Yet they form the foundation upon which all national progress rests.
A nation may postpone infrastructure projects. It may delay industrial expansion. It may reduce development spending temporarily. But it cannot postpone its own defense.
History offers countless examples of prosperous societies that lost their freedom because they underestimated security threats. Wealth can be rebuilt. Infrastructure can be reconstructed. Lost sovereignty is far more difficult to recover.
This is particularly relevant in South Asia, where geography compresses reaction times and strategic decisions must often be made within minutes rather than days. In such an environment, deterrence is not a luxury. It is a necessity.
That does not mean Pakistan should neglect the civilian sector. On the contrary, the country’s long-term strength depends on economic growth. The true challenge is not choosing between guns and butter; it is ensuring that both reinforce each other. A strong economy funds a strong military. A secure nation creates the conditions for economic growth.
Pakistan must therefore pursue simultaneous reforms. Agriculture must become more productive. Export industries must become more competitive. Education must be modernized. Scientific research must be encouraged. State-owned enterprises that drain public resources should be restructured or privatized where appropriate. Transportation systems must be upgraded. Energy infrastructure must become more reliable and efficient.
The second phase of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor offers opportunities in this regard. If implemented effectively, it can strengthen industrial capacity, improve logistics, modernize agriculture, and enhance technological capabilities. Such investments will expand the economic base from which both development and defence are financed.
The lesson is straightforward. Defence spending alone cannot create prosperity. But prosperity without security cannot survive.
Pakistan’s 2026-27 budget reflects that reality. It represents a national judgment that while economic development remains essential, sovereignty comes first. Independence comes first. National dignity comes first. Self-respect comes first.
Only when a nation is secure in its borders, confident in its deterrence, and protected against external threats can it fully devote its energies to education, innovation, commerce, and development.
The ultimate objective is not a militarized state. The ultimate objective is a secure, prosperous, educated, and technologically advanced Pakistan. Defence provides the shield; economic development provides the engine.
A nation needs both. But when history forces a choice, most Pakistanis would argue that freedom and sovereignty must come first, because without them, everything else remains vulnerable.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attaché to Malaysia
Former MD, SRBC | Michigan, USA
