The International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a $2.3 billion bailout package for Pakistan, comprising $1 billion under the Extended Fund Facility and $1.3 billion via the Resilience and Sustainability Facility. The funding came at a time when Pakistan’s economy was teetering on the brink, with inflation crossing 38% in April and foreign reserves dwindling to just three weeks of import cover. While IMF aid is critical to averting default, the decision triggered strong political backlash in India—particularly following the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir that killed 26, allegedly orchestrated by Pakistan-based groups.
India’s response was swift but constrained. Despite its diplomatic opposition, India did not vote against the IMF’s decision. Instead, it abstained, sparking questions about whether the world’s most populous country, and a rising economic power, has any real leverage in global financial governance when strategic adversaries are involved.
The Limits of Influence: Why India Could Not Vote ‘No’
The fundamental reason behind India’s inability to block the package lies in the IMF’s institutional architecture. As per the IMF charter, board members may vote “yes” or abstain—but there is no option for a “no” vote in such cases. This procedural limitation shaped India’s position. According to a senior Indian government official “there was no provision for a ‘no’ vote… the abstention was the strongest disapproval mechanism available to us”.
Moreover, IMF decisions are typically consensus-driven, heavily influenced by the United States, European Union, and a few key stakeholders. India’s voting share in the IMF stands at approximately 2.63%, compared to the United States’ 16.5%, according to IMF Governance. This asymmetry makes it nearly impossible for India to unilaterally block funding even if it had chosen to mount a more aggressive opposition.
Strategic Restraint or Diplomatic Calculation?
India’s abstention reflects more than just procedural hurdles—it represents a calculated act of diplomatic restraint. New Delhi is caught in a paradox: while deeply concerned about Pakistan’s misuse of funds and alleged support for terrorism, it also wants to maintain credibility as a responsible global stakeholder, particularly in institutions like the IMF.
More Read
India is increasingly positioning itself as a voice for the Global South and a potential bridge between developed and developing nations. Blocking a financial lifeline to a neighboring developing country—even an adversarial one—could have been perceived as parochial or vindictive. As reported by The Hindu, Indian officials emphasized that the abstention was meant to “register disapproval without derailing international cooperation”.
The Terrorism Link: India’s Concerns Remain Unaddressed
The core of India’s disapproval is rooted in Pakistan’s alleged use of external aid for non-economic purposes, particularly military funding and the support of militant groups. The timing of the IMF’s approval—just days after the Pahalgam attack—amplified these fears. Indian security experts argue that in the absence of stringent accountability mechanisms, Pakistan could continue to divert resources, directly or indirectly, toward activities that destabilize the region.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) underscored this risk, stating that “a country repeatedly receiving global financial aid must be held accountable for its actions, especially when they impact regional peace”.
More Read
Yet, the IMF maintains that its funding comes with conditionalities designed to enforce macroeconomic discipline and structural reforms. Critics argue, however, that enforcement is weak, particularly in politically unstable countries like Pakistan, where civilian governments lack continuity and face institutional resistance.
The Economic Dimension: Why the IMF Chose Pakistan Over Optics
From the IMF’s standpoint, Pakistan’s economic collapse posed systemic risks to the region. A default could have had spillover effects for Afghanistan, Iran, and Central Asia, potentially triggering a humanitarian crisis or mass migration. Despite its concerns, the IMF likely saw the bailout as the lesser evil.
The funding, however, is not a blank cheque. It is tied to Pakistan meeting certain “prior actions,” including passing key legislation by June 30 and reforming its tax base. Failure to comply could delay future disbursements, providing at least some mechanism for oversight.
Still, for India, these assurances fall short of addressing its security concerns. “Austerity reforms don’t stop cross-border terrorism,” noted one retired Indian diplomat, reflecting skepticism about whether economic aid can ever be decoupled from national security.
Implications for India’s Global Role
This episode reveals a fundamental challenge for India’s foreign policy: the gap between aspirations and institutional leverage. Despite being the world’s fifth-largest economy, India lacks veto power or bloc leadership in institutions like the IMF, which continue to be dominated by Western powers. If India seeks greater influence over such decisions, it may need to intensify its push for governance reform within multilateral bodies or build new regional alternatives.
Furthermore, India’s abstention may be read by some domestic observers as a sign of weakness, while others might view it as a mature diplomatic stance. What is clear is that India must now walk a tightrope—balancing its strategic rivalry with Pakistan, its global image, and its desire for more clout on the international stage.
More Read
A Final Note: A Vote Deferred, But Not Forgotten
India’s abstention on the IMF bailout to Pakistan is emblematic of the broader geopolitical dilemma it faces—how to wield influence without derailing its diplomatic credibility. While the abstention was procedural, its symbolic value is significant. It signals India’s disapproval of unconditional aid to countries allegedly fostering terrorism, while also highlighting its limited power within current global governance structures.
Unless IMF conditionality grows teeth, and unless Pakistan demonstrates genuine reform, this will not be the last time India finds itself caught between principle and pragmatism on the global stage.
