Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and support

Arts within themselves have the capacity to bring social reforms. It enhances the idea of freedom of expression. Though investing in art and military equally seems ideal, it is not pragmatic.

In my country, India, with limited resources, and constant threat of terrorism, it is the need of an hour to have top notch defense - military. Most of the developing nations face the same threat. Therefore, it is necessary for a country's government to invest highly on military. Meanwhile, on the arts front, apart from a few popular arts- movie making, dance, the lucrative prospects are not dense. Hardly few people, at least from my country would pay a significant amount on a piece of art, say paintings or photographs. People are so busy in earning daily bread, most of the money is spent on living. Investing in art seems a useless thing. There are not more prospects for art in developing country. As such, government will not profit on monetary terms even though the imply taxes on art as means of income.

On the contrary, one might argue, art could possibly change the way people think. Demonstrating peace through art, would effectively propagate harmony, thereby reducing the investment on military. However, art can spread peace only internally. External forces, terrorism, threats from neighboring countries, climatic disasters cannot be dealt without a strong military.

Also, as I have not experienced the world apart from my country, my view would be limited to India. There might be a tremendous scope for art in few countries which do not face much threats from outside factors.

As Investing in military seems to be a vital thing in most of developing countries, I strongly believe investing in arts as much as in military is not feasible.