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.