Many people in India feel that if we cut our defence expenditure on weapon-building, we can create a climate of peace with our neighbours, subsequently reducing the conflict or creating a no-war situation. People who proclaim such ideas are either the victims of war or the propagators of false argument.

Correct Option (B)

The passage explicitly refutes the notion that reducing defence expenditure fosters peace, characterizing such proponents as misinformed. By doing so, it implicitly supports the counter-argument: that maintaining or increasing defence capabilities, through weapon-building, serves as a deterrent against potential aggression from neighbours. This aligns with the principle that a robust defence posture lessens the probability of armed conflict.

Incorrect Options:

• Option (A): The passage does not assert that India's weapon-building instigates wars. Instead, it challenges the premise that reduced defence spending inherently leads to peace, focusing on the deterrent effect of military strength.
• Option (C): While state-of-the-art weapon systems are integral to national security, the passage's primary focus is on the strategic utility of defence expenditure as a deterrent against conflict, rather than specifically on the technological advancement of weapons.
• Option (D): The passage notes that some individuals believe in reducing defence expenditure to achieve peace. However, it does not state that these individuals perceive current weapon-building efforts as a waste of resources. The author's argument is against the efficacy of such a reduction in achieving peace.