Bangladesh stands at a fiscal crossroads. For decades, the nation has been celebrated as a development miracle, lifting millions out of poverty through savvy macroeconomic management and a steadfast focus on human security in food, health, and education.
Today, however, that hard-won stability is threatened not only by climate change but also by a rapid, dollar-driven defense expansion.
The nation’s Forces Goal 2030 modernization program, that commenced in 2009 under the previous Awami League regime and was also updated in 2017, is gaining speed, recently highlighted by reports of large procurement deals for high-end military hardware.
While safeguarding sovereignty is a core duty of the state, these billions of dollars spent on such equipment show a serious misallocation of resources, weakening the very economic base that underpins national stability.
The main argument against this increase in defense spending is economic. Bangladesh is currently dealing with a serious foreign exchange crisis. Gross reserves have fallen from nearly $48 billion in 2021 to under $22bn in late 2025. This crisis has resulted in import restrictions, inflation, and a reliance on the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Every major defense contract, whether for Chinese jets or Turkish drones, requires an immediate or staggered outlay of US Dollars. The reported plan to purchase up to 20 J-10CE fighter jets alone is believed to be a deal worth over $2 billion, accounting for nearly 10% of the country’s current gross reserves.
Diverting such large sums to foreign arms manufacturers, often involving long-term sovereign debt commitments, directly hampers the government's ability to fund essential imports such as fuel, fertilizers, and raw materials for the vital RMG sector.
In an economy deprived of foreign currency, the opportunity cost is enormous. Military priorities, such as the purchase of submarines, jets, and frigates, place heavy demands on limited foreign currency.
Meanwhile, the essential human security needs -- importing vital agricultural inputs and energy -- struggle to compete for decreasing resources. Additionally, the security benefits from this large military expenditure mainly serve as deterrence against unlikely conventional threats, whereas the greatest returns come from investing in climate adaptation, food storage, public health, and job creation.
Spending $100m on military gear means $100m less for stabilizing food prices or funding flood protection. This is a fundamental misallocation when stability relies on those essential areas.
A rational defense strategy must address clearly identified security threats. For Bangladesh, its most critical threats are not military. The regional geopolitical landscape, while intricate, does not pose an immediate risk of conventional warfare that would justify prioritizing offensive aerial or naval capabilities.
India remains a strategic partner, and although tensions exist, they are managed diplomatically. Myanmar’s instability causes refugee and border management issues, not a need for advanced anti-aircraft missile batteries.
The real, serious threats facing Bangladesh are environmental and internal. Considering security dangers, using the military as a solution is hardly effective or not effective at all for the most urgent issues.
Climate change risks require investment in coastal embankments and climate-resistant farming methods; fighter jets are pointless. Similarly, addressing food insecurity caused by global price shocks and crop loss involves subsidies for fertilizers, modern irrigation methods, and grain storage, not anti-aircraft weapons.
Even fixing economic instability, like high inflation and unemployment, needs fiscal responsibility and social safety nets, areas where the military offers very little help.
The main threat to the country's stability isn't an invading army but the looming crisis of millions of internal climate refugees and the breakdown of the agricultural system caused by salinity intrusion and perennial flooding.
A $100m advanced drone system cannot drain a single waterlogged field or safeguard a single kilometre of embankment. To grasp the long-term effects of prioritizing arms over human development, Bangladesh need only look West.
The Pakistan paradox is a powerful warning: For decades, Pakistan maintained a large, formidable military, consuming a disproportionate portion of its GDP. This focus on military strength over vital development starved the social sectors-health, education, and water management.
The result is a fragile state structurally, plagued by ongoing poverty, high illiteracy rates, and recurring debt crises that have required more than 20 IMF bailouts. Pakistan became militarily strong but economically and socially weak, ultimately risking its long-term security.
Bangladesh’s success in reducing poverty has relied on avoiding this trap. Diverting funds now could undo decades of progress, possibly causing social unrest and political instability driven by economic hardship -- a far greater internal security threat than any external adversary.
Bangladesh's approach to national security requires a complete rethinking. True security is achieved when every citizen has dependable access to food, clean water, sustainable livelihoods, and infrastructure protected against natural disasters.
A prudent step would be to adopt an economically sound defense policy that prioritizes cost-effective, high-impact security measures, such as direct investments in the Coast Guard, maritime surveillance, border control, and cybersecurity -- key areas for combating smuggling, illegal fishing, and transnational crime.
Resources should be redirected towards climate resilience by shifting significant funding from speculative air superiority programs to initiatives such as flood control, climate-resilient agriculture, and coastal infrastructure, while also maintaining fiscal discipline by safeguarding foreign reserves.
This helps stabilize the currency and ensures a steady supply of essential goods for food and energy security.
Bangladesh should be cautious about participating in the global arms race. The country’s future will depend more on the strength and adaptability of its economy and population than on advanced military hardware.
Dr Ezaz Mamun is a writer and freelance contributor.
