Military ‘Modernisation' Drive Is Disastrous For Pakistan's Economy & Polity

News18

17-07-2025

Last Updated:
The Pakistan Army's recent procurement ambitions underscore the militarised perspective through which national priorities are frequently shaped
Amidst deteriorating economic conditions, the Pakistan Army is embarking on an assertive and ambitious course of military modernisation, channelling significant resources into advanced weaponry despite pervasive poverty, escalating inflation, and crumbling public infrastructure. This determined enhancement of military capability—highlighted by the prospective acquisition of China's HQ-19 air defence system, the untested and unproven Shenyang J-35s (derived from the Shenyang FC-31 'Gyrfalcon"), and KJ-2000 aircraft—aims to counter India's conventional military superiority, but has sparked serious apprehensions both domestically and internationally.
While this build-up is officially framed as a strategic necessity in response to regional threats, critics increasingly interpret it as a disquieting sign of the military establishment's growing dominance over Pakistan's political and economic landscape. With civilian institutions collapsing under the strain of chronic underfunding and disregard, a critical question arises: is this arms buildup genuinely about safeguarding national security, or is it fundamentally about consolidating power?
The HQ-19, an advanced anti-ballistic missile system, represents more than just a military upgrade—it reflects Pakistan's increasing prioritisation of militarisation, a trajectory that appears increasingly misaligned with its economic circumstances. Pakistan's external debt has exceeded $130 billion, and its foreign exchange reserves remain critically low. The nation has been compelled to depend on financial support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Gulf nations, and China, often subject to stringent austerity measures.
These economic pressures have resulted in substantial reductions in public services, leading to a pronounced deterioration in the quality of education, healthcare, and essential infrastructure. The disparity is striking: while children in rural Sindh attend schools without furniture or textbooks and hospitals in Balochistan lack vital medicines, the government continues to allocate billions towards radar systems, drones, and missile defence technology.
According to the World Bank's latest estimate, nearly 45 per cent of Pakistan's population lives in poverty, with an additional 16.5 per cent enduring extreme poverty. In sharp contrast, India—the regional rival Pakistan seeks to match—has lifted a record number of people out of poverty. Within the past year alone, 1.9 million more individuals in Pakistan have slipped below the poverty line.
This trend towards militarisation has not escaped scrutiny. Public discourse—particularly among independent journalists and policy analysts—is increasingly centred on the imbalance between military expenditure and investment in social development. Critics contend that these acquisitions are less about safeguarding national borders and more about preserving the military's institutional dominance.
Historically, the Pakistan Army has wielded considerable autonomy and influence, frequently operating outside the bounds of civilian control. Its presence extends into major economic sectors—including construction, agriculture, and real estate—largely via military-operated conglomerates such as the Fauji Foundation and the Army Welfare Trust. This deep-rooted economic involvement has fostered a system in which the distinction between national interest and military interest is progressively obscured. Pakistan has, in effect, become a garrison state—one in which military imperatives dominate the allocation of economic resources.
The repercussions of this imbalance are acutely experienced by ordinary Pakistanis. Inflation—fuelled by currency depreciation and rising global costs—has rendered basic goods unaffordable for millions. Unemployment continues to climb, particularly among the youth, while the informal labour sector—already fragile—has expanded further due to the decline in formal employment opportunities. Simultaneously, power outages remain commonplace, water scarcity persists across numerous regions, and urban infrastructure—from roadways to drainage systems—is deteriorating under increasing strain. Within this setting, announcements of fresh military procurements are frequently met with a mix of disbelief, resentment, and growing public discontent.
The government's rationale centres on national security and maintaining regional equilibrium. With India continually advancing its military capabilities and longstanding tensions over Kashmir persisting, Pakistani defence officials maintain that remaining technologically competitive is imperative. The HQ-19 system, designed to intercept ballistic missiles at high altitudes, is portrayed as a strategic counter to India's expanding missile defence infrastructure. However, this narrative avoids addressing a deeper concern: at what cost?
While achieving regional parity is a legitimate objective, is it more urgent than feeding children, providing medical care, and educating future generations? Similar doubts emerge regarding the anticipated acquisition of J-35 fighter jets by the Pakistan Air Force. The ongoing maintenance costs of such advanced aircraft could significantly strain Pakistan's annual budget. Critics argue that this fixation on military rivalry ignores the fundamental pillars of national security—economic resilience, social welfare, and human capital development.
Furthermore, the secrecy and lack of transparency surrounding these procurements have heightened anxieties over accountability. In contrast to defence budgets in many democratic states—where military expenditure undergoes parliamentary oversight and public discussion—Pakistan's defence spending remains predominantly exempt from such scrutiny. Civilian administrations frequently possess minimal influence over these decisions, resulting in a democratic shortfall that weakens institutional checks and balances. The military's disproportionately large claim on national resources is not merely a fiscal concern—it signifies a more profound structural issue regarding the distribution of power within Pakistan.
The strategic alliance with China introduces an added layer of complexity. China has emerged as Pakistan's principal supplier of military hardware, and while the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) holds theoretical promise, it has yet to deliver widespread economic transformation. Instead, there is growing apprehension over rising debt dependency and the minimal involvement of local stakeholders in these large-scale initiatives. The provision of the HQ-19 system, therefore, may extend beyond defence purposes—it could serve as a tool for strengthening geopolitical alignment and advancing debt diplomacy. While the military leadership may perceive this as a strategic gain, the long-term consequences for national sovereignty and economic autonomy are considerably less encouraging. Simultaneously, the J-35's elevated costs and demanding maintenance requirements risk further burdening Pakistan's already fragile financial position, especially as it endeavours to modernise its air force. Moreover, China's decision to export the J-35 before its integration into the People's Liberation Army Air Force introduces considerable strategic uncertainty.
Another deeply concerning aspect is the impact of militarisation on democratic governance. When the military assumes control over key areas of national policy, civilian authorities are frequently reduced to symbolic roles. This dynamic undermines democratic institutions, erodes policymaking competence, and cultivates a culture of impunity. The pattern becomes self-perpetuating: as military dominance increases, civilian institutions become progressively less capable of exercising oversight, while public perception shifts to viewing the military as the sole effective institution within a deteriorating state. This sentiment further weakens confidence in democratic mechanisms and complicates efforts to promote alternative national priorities.
The social cost is immense. Public health metrics continue to worsen, with malnutrition, maternal mortality, and preventable illnesses remaining widespread. The education sector, particularly in rural regions, suffers from chronic underfunding, staffing shortages, and systemic dysfunction. Literacy rates show little improvement, and Pakistan performs poorly on international human development rankings. Within this context, the imagery of cutting-edge missile defence systems appears especially incongruous. What message is conveyed to citizens when their government places a higher premium on armaments than on essential public welfare?
There is also a significant risk of heightened regional instability. Arms races, by their very nature, tend to escalate the probability of conflict rather than prevent it. As India and Pakistan simultaneously expand their defence capabilities, opportunities for diplomacy and mutual confidence-building diminish. The deployment of technologies such as the HQ-19 and J-35 fighter jets could trigger reciprocal measures by India, fuelling a perilous cycle of provocation and response. At a time when South Asia confronts shared challenges—ranging from climate change and water scarcity to terrorism—the diversion of vital resources into military build-ups undermines the region's collective capacity to address these pressing threats.
Voices from civil society are increasingly urging a realignment of national priorities. Economists, educationists, and public health experts argue that genuine security is rooted in human development. A population that is well-educated, healthy, and economically empowered is considerably more resilient against external threats than any missile defence system. Moreover, reallocating resources towards social sectors could foster inclusive economic growth, alleviate inequality, and strengthen social cohesion—outcomes that are essential for achieving sustainable peace.
The way ahead demands political will and comprehensive institutional reform. Civilian authorities must reassert control over policymaking and insist on greater transparency in defence expenditure. Parliamentary scrutiny must be reinforced, and budgetary priorities should align with the genuine needs of the populace. International stakeholders also share responsibility. Donor nations and financial institutions should refrain from facilitating unregulated military spending through aid or loans that do not impose conditions promoting investment in social development.
The Pakistan Army's recent procurement ambitions—exemplified by the prospective acquisition of the HQ-19 missile system and J-35 fighter jets—underscore the militarised perspective through which national priorities are frequently shaped. While strategic defence undeniably holds significance, it must not come at the cost of essential human development. In a nation where millions lack access to clean water, quality education, and adequate healthcare, investing in advanced weaponry cannot be seen as a comprehensive solution to security challenges.
top videos
View all
The true measure of a nation's strength lies not in its arsenal, but in the well-being of its citizens. Ultimately, the arms race may not only fail to enhance Pakistan's security—it risks deepening internal vulnerabilities and widening the disconnect between the state and its people. Can Pakistan continue to sustain this pattern of militarisation in South Asia? India, the world's fourth-largest economy, reserves the right to respond with acquisitions of its own. The short-term 'advantages" sought by Pakistan's militarised leadership will prove unsustainable if the state persists in acting like a revisionist power under the mistaken belief that it can contend with a nation of India's scale.
The writer is an author and a columnist. His X handle is @ArunAnandLive. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
June 24, 2025, 15:27 IST
News opinion Global Watch | Military 'Modernisation' Drive Is Disastrous For Pakistan's Economy & Polity
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.