N-EQUALISER ASIDE, HOW CLOSE IS PAK MILITARY TO INDIA'S?

Comparing defence expenditures doesn't give a clear picture. If pension spend is taken out for India and off-budget support added for Pakistan, the difference narrows in the short term

- MANISH TEWARI

The true balance of power between two adversaries is decided long before hostilities commence on the battlefield—in the quiet interplay of capability, intent, and the means to sustain both. The question, therefore, is can Pakistan sustain a claim to conventional parity with India despite a headline defence-spending ratio that heavily favours New Delhi? This demands an evidence-based answer that treats money as necessary, but not sufficient, for military power.

After the tit-for-tat nuclear tests between India and Pakistan in May 1998, the strategic balance of power in South Asia was frozen in perpetuity. Pakistan's ability to claim conventional deterrence parity with India, despite a defence budget several times smaller, rests on a composite of force-design choices, external assistance and technology transfers, selective modernisation, and a calibrated deterrence architecture.

The claim is not that Pakistan equals India in absolute numbers, or in the full spectrum of capability; rather, it is that Islamabad seeks 'effective parity', not 'numerical parity'—the ability to negate India's advantages at decisive points that matter to the political outcome of war.

The resource reality at the core argues against any such parity. Pakistan's 2025-26 defence allocation is about $9 billion, while India's is around $78-81 billion. The headline ratio, however, conceals two essential accounting adjustments. Firstly, India's figure is typically inclusive of pensions and other miscellaneous expenses that account for around a third. Excluding them, the Indian discretionary envelope falls to $54-55 billion—around six times Pakistan's, not nine times.