Business
IMF’s Pakistan Bailout Triggers Indian Outcry, But No Veto Power
IMF approves $2.3B bailout for Pakistan; India abstains, exposing limits of global financial influence

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.
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”.
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.
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.

Business
Raids, Protests, and Lawsuits: How ICE’s Crackdown Turned U.S. Cities Into Battlegrounds
ICE raids across U.S. target immigrants, spark mass protests, legal challenges, and civil rights outcry

In early June 2025, the United States witnessed a dramatic escalation in immigration enforcement as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched a wave of nationwide raids targeting undocumented immigrants and even some legal residents. These raids, directed under the Trump administration’s aggressive interior enforcement agenda, began around June 6 in Los Angeles and rapidly expanded to multiple cities, including Norristown (PA), Chicago, Baltimore, and several areas across Texas and Nebraska. Unlike previous efforts focused mainly on border enforcement, these operations marked a shift toward workplace arrests, raids at homes, places of worship, and even random stops in public spaces, raising alarm across immigrant communities and civil rights organizations.
The operations started in Southern California’s garment district, where over 100 arrests were made in the first few days. ICE agents raided clothing warehouses, car washes, Home Depot parking lots, and even churches like the Downey Memorial Christian Church. Many detainees were long-time residents with deep community ties, and in some cases, legal immigration status. Reports emerged of families being held in basement detention cells without access to food, clean water, or legal counsel for up to 48 hours. One particularly disturbing case involved a 23-year-old Zapotec man deported just 48 hours after being picked up at his job site. In cities like Norristown and Chicago’s South Loop, individuals were allegedly tricked into arrests after receiving deceptive texts about immigration appointments, prompting immediate backlash from immigrant advocacy groups.
The justification given by the administration was twofold: the need to increase deportation figures and a strategy to reassert federal authority. With border encounters down to around 12,000 per month from highs of over 200,000 during the Biden administration, ICE sought to shift its attention inward. The goal, according to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, was to target those who had overstayed visas, had unresolved asylum claims, or had minor infractions—regardless of how long they had lived in the U.S. President Trump also framed the raids as a response to “restoring law and order,” a message accompanied by the deployment of thousands of federal troops. Around 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines were stationed in Los Angeles to support ICE and deter protests. The legality of this deployment is now under challenge, with California Governor Gavin Newsom filing lawsuits that were temporarily blocked by a federal court.
Public response to the raids was swift and intense. Massive protests erupted in Los Angeles, with demonstrators blocking streets in downtown and rallying in suburbs like Compton and Paramount. Thousands also took to the streets in cities like Seattle, Tucson, San Antonio, Chicago, New York, and Las Vegas. In Baltimore, ICE officers reportedly detained at least 16 people from stores and parking lots, prompting spontaneous protests with chants like “ICE out of Baltimore.” Community groups, legal aid organizations, and civil rights advocates condemned the operations, citing constitutional violations and due process concerns. Many accused ICE of racial profiling and acting without warrants. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and several immigrant defense organizations have filed urgent motions to halt deportations and demand immediate access to detained individuals.

Business
Millions Forced to Think for Themselves: Inside ChatGPT’s June 10 Meltdown
Global ChatGPT outage on June 10 disrupted millions, exposing deep reliance on generative AI

On June 10, 2025, users around the world faced a major disruption when OpenAI’s widely used AI chatbot, ChatGPT, experienced a sudden and widespread outage. The platform, which millions rely on for work, studies, and daily tasks, began showing elevated error rates and login failures around midday IST. Reports of issues quickly flooded DownDetector and other tracking services, with users in India, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Europe experiencing either total service failure or unresponsive prompts. Both free and premium users, including developers using the API, were affected. The outage, which lasted several hours, highlighted the extent to which generative AI has become a foundational tool for modern productivity.
As the glitch unfolded, online forums and social media platforms became hotspots for frustrated and bewildered reactions. On X (formerly Twitter), many users joked about having to “use their own brains” again, while others openly admitted they were unable to work without ChatGPT. Some users expressed genuine concern, saying they relied on the tool not just for technical or creative tasks, but also for emotional support and decision-making. One user shared that they stayed up until 4:30 a.m. to complete a project, only to find ChatGPT was down when they needed it to review their work. Memes soon flooded the internet, with one widely shared post reading, “Millions forced to use brain as ChatGPT takes the day off.”
At the height of the outage, over 80% of reports from India were related to core functionality issues, while users in the U.S. and UK also reported that up to 93% of their complaints involved complete loss of access to ChatGPT. Students, remote workers, content creators, developers, and even corporate teams faced difficulties continuing their assignments. Market analysts noted that the disruption prompted over half a million related searches in the United States alone, with many users frantically looking for alternatives such as Gemini, Microsoft’s Copilot, or Anthropic’s Claude.
OpenAI acknowledged the outage on its official status page and confirmed that all services—ChatGPT, API, and its Sora video-generation tool—were experiencing elevated error rates and latency. By late evening Eastern Time, the company had identified the root cause and began rolling out a fix. Full functionality for API users was restored by around 6:30 p.m. ET, while ChatGPT’s voice mode and other features took a little longer to stabilize. Although no specific reason was publicly disclosed for the failure, the quick recovery was met with relief by users who had grown dependent on the AI assistant.
The outage served as a sharp reminder of the digital age’s growing reliance on artificial intelligence. What was once a helpful tool has now become, for many, a necessity. This global incident emphasized the importance of having alternative tools and backup plans in place. It also raised questions about infrastructure stability and whether depending so heavily on a single service provider is sustainable. While OpenAI was able to restore its systems in a matter of hours, the temporary loss still caused widespread disruption, anxiety, and even a bit of soul-searching for those who had come to see ChatGPT as their digital partner in everything from emails to therapy.
In the aftermath, discussions emerged about the need for diversified AI access, stronger system resilience, and contingency workflows that don’t solely rely on any one platform. While the memes and jokes brought some levity to the situation, the underlying concern remained: what happens when the tool we’ve come to depend on simply disappears for hours? The June 10 outage wasn’t just a technical glitch, it was a wake-up call about the real-world consequences of our growing dependence on AI.

Business
Bots vs. Labor: The High-Stakes Battle to Save American Jobs from Automation
U.S. unions push for AI safeguards as automation threatens jobs, rights, and workplace autonomy

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into various sectors of the U.S. economy has ignited significant concern among labor unions. As AI technologies increasingly perform tasks traditionally done by humans, unions are advocating for protective measures to safeguard workers’ rights and job security. The fear is not unfounded; projections suggest that AI could eliminate up to 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, potentially raising U.S. unemployment to 20% by 2030.
Legislative Efforts and Union Advocacy
In response to the growing influence of AI in the workplace, labor unions are pushing for legislative reforms. The AFL-CIO emphasizes the need for policies that ensure AI benefits workers and does not undermine labor rights. Additionally, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act aims to strengthen workers’ rights to unionize and collectively bargain, which is crucial in the context of AI-driven workplace changes.
However, these efforts face significant political obstacles. For instance, California’s governor has twice vetoed bills that would ban autonomous trucks from public roads, despite intense lobbying from the state’s hundreds of thousands of union members. Similar battles are playing out in other states, highlighting the challenges unions face in enacting protective legislation.
How Various Industries are Being Impacted
AI’s impact is evident across multiple sectors. For instance, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) has expressed concerns over automation at ports, fearing job losses due to AI-controlled machinery. Similarly, the Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) initiated a strike in 2024 over the use of AI in replicating actors’ voices and likenesses without consent.
Moreover, the retail sector, employing more than a quarter of all U.S. workers, is experiencing a transformation into an AI-powered environment. In this new landscape, innocuous behavior can be criminalized, safety can be weaponized, and the ability to exercise one’s legally protected right to organize a union can be endangered.
Surveillance and Worker Autonomy
Beyond job displacement, unions are also addressing the increased surveillance capabilities enabled by AI. Retailers and other employers are deploying AI tools for monitoring employee behavior, raising concerns about privacy and autonomy in the workplace. Such surveillance can create a stressful working environment, reducing overall job satisfaction and increasing anxiety among employees.
In response, unions are advocating for transparency in AI implementation and legal safeguards to defend employee rights. They are pushing for a more inclusive dialogue that ensures workers have a voice in how AI is integrated, emphasizing the need for responsible and ethical AI adoption that does not sideline human labor.
A Final Note
As AI continues to reshape the labor landscape, U.S. unions are actively seeking protections to ensure that technological advancements do not come at the expense of workers’ rights and livelihoods. Through legislative advocacy and collective bargaining, unions aim to navigate the challenges posed by automation and secure a future where both innovation and labor can thrive.

-
Business4 months ago
Why Are Planes Falling from the Sky?
-
Opinion4 months ago
How I Spent My Week: Roasting Musk, Martian ICE, and Government Absurdities
-
Politics6 months ago
Comrade Workwear Unveils ‘Most Wanted CEO’ Playing Cards Amidst Controversy
-
Business2 months ago
Trump’s ‘Gold Card’ Visa: Citizenship for Sale at $5 Million a Piece
-
Opinion5 months ago
From Le Pen to Trump: The Far-Right Legacy Behind a Presidential Comeback
-
Politics5 months ago
The Changing Face of Terrorism in 2025
-
Opinion5 months ago
2025: The Turning Point in Global Power and Security
-
Politics3 months ago
Trump and the New World Order