The national armed forces of modern states play pivotal role in the country’s security and natural hazards. Apart from maintaining peace and stability, these forces are also involved in humanitarian emergencies and rescue operations. For instance, the armed forces of the United States play a significant role in humanitarian aid and disaster relief, as they did in the disaster of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Emergency Response and Recovery (ERR) of the United Kingdom, and Japan Self Defence Forces (JSDF) provide emergency relief supplies during major disasters.

National armed forces of modern states play pivotal role in the Country’s security as well as natural hazards

Pakistan and India are among the world’s most natural disaster-prone countries. Both countries are equally in danger of disasters as the two countries have similar geography, climate, and environmental attributes. In recent years the frequency and intensity of disasters have increased. Due to climate change, Pakistan and India faced several natural hazards including floods, cyclones, droughts, tsunamis, and earthquakes.

Armed forces of both countries conducted rescue and relief operations but the role of the Indian armed forces has been criticised and become public debate. The Indian Armed Forces, which runs schools, hospitals, and welfare institutions primarily for its personnel, often seek financial compensation for their critical relief services and rescue operations. Therefore, armed forces have been criticized by the public for their commercialization and profiteering. Whereas the Pakistan Army did not make such a demand, it conducts relief and humanitarian operations as their national duties. This contrast reflects significant differences in civil-military relations and public perception of both countries.

Pakistan’s armed forces played a commendable role when Pakistan was faced with floods, cyclones, droughts, and earthquakes

The issue of financial benefits tied to relief operations in India has been contentious since the country’s independence in 1947. The Indian Air Force (IAF) and Indian Army have provided disaster relief across the country. The natural calamity caused huge damage to India. The super cyclone of Odisha in 1999 damaged 18.97 lakh houses, and 10,092 lives were lost, the Gujarat earthquake of 2001 affected directly or indirectly 15.9 million people out of a total population of 37.8 million in Gujrat province, and the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 caused 174,500 casualties, 51,500 missing, and 1.5 million people were displaced.

The Indian Airforce presented a bill of 207 crore as compensation for the relief operation to the state government of Uttarakhand

The tension arises when the armed forces are perceived to be seeking financial compensation for tasks that may be traditionally considered as part of their service to the nation. After the devastating flood in Uttarakhand in 2013, the Indian Air Force presented a bill of 207 crore as compensation for the relief operation to the state government of Uttarakhand. Similarly, in the wake of the 2004 tsunami and the 2015 Nepal earthquake, the Indian armed forces presented bills of compensation for relief and rescue operations to the state and central government. Apart from natural disasters, the Indian army and paramilitary forces demanded financial compensation for troops’ deployment and their allowances in operation at Kargil in 1999, and the anti-Naxalite operation in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha. These demands of financial compensation by the Indian armed forces for their services precipitated debates over civil-military relations. The Uttarakhand state government contested the bill in the high court and argued that such rescue operations should be a national duty, not a commercial transaction.
In contrast, the Pakistan Army has consistently served the nation in times of need.

The Pakistan Army has not demanded any compensation for the October 2005 earthquake or the 2010 flood

The military perceives its institution as a guardian of the state with a moral obligation to assist civilians during crises. For instance, the October 2005 earthquake was the most serious blow that caused extensive damage to economic assets and infrastructure in Azad Jammu Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by killing at least 73,000 people, 70,000 severely injured, and leaving 2.8 million people without homes. The 2010 flood had a devastating effect on the three populous provinces of Pakistan; Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Sindh. According to government reports, over 18 million people have been affected by the flood, and 1.74 million homes have been destroyed or damaged.The Pakistan Army undertook relief and rescue operations by deploying army personnel, installing medical camps, used helicopters and aircraft to rescue the victims without demanding any compensation from provincial or central government. This constant commitment to public service strengthened the army’s image as a compassionate institution dedicated to the welfare of the people and a real hero of the nation, both in times of war and natural disasters. This approach of Pakistan’s armed forces not only enhances its public image but also strengthens its influence in the country’s civil-military relations.

Financial profiteering is perceived as prioritising economic benefits over humanitarian needs

The general sentiment among the Indian public is that the armed forces, which are funded by taxpayers, should prioritize national service and not seek any financial compensation for relief and rescue operations. The Indian military’s operations in Siachen Glacier, which involve high logistical and operational costs of 6 crores per day and 2200 crores per year have further intensified the criticism. The critique believed that there is a need for national security but whether such high expenses are justified for a low-intensity conflict zone or represent the misuse of national resources is still to be determined. Therefore, this financial profiteering has sometimes been perceived by critics as prioritizing economic benefits over humanitarian needs.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.