A Dangerous Contradiction: IMF’s Bailout to Pakistan Amid Escalating Conflict

As someone committed to fostering peace, inclusion, and responsible global citizenship through my work with youth and civil society, I write this with a deep sense of disappointment—not in anger, but in concern. The recent approval of financial support by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to Pakistan comes at a particularly fragile moment for our region and sends a conflicting message at best.

On one hand, India is still reeling from a brutal terror attack in Kashmir—an act our government has rightfully attributed to groups operating from across the border. Military tensions have escalated, and while our nation seeks to defend its sovereignty, we also remain a pillar of restraint and dialogue in the region. On the other hand, the international community—many of whom have stood by India in condemning terrorism—now risks undermining that stance by extending financial support to Pakistan.

A Complicated Moment, A Clearer Responsibility

Let me be clear: the economic hardships faced by the Pakistani people are real. Development, climate resilience, and debt sustainability are urgent and worthy goals. But when such aid flows without robust accountability—especially to a country repeatedly flagged for harboring terror groups—it raises serious questions.

India has consistently urged institutions like the IMF to ensure that financial assistance is not misused or diverted toward military or destabilizing purposes. These are not abstract fears—they are rooted in decades of lived experience. While there is no public proof that IMF funds are directly funding terror networks, the lack of transparency and past patterns of financial misuse give little reassurance.

Western Support for India—and the Need for Consistency

We acknowledge and appreciate the consistent support of Western partners for India’s fight against terrorism. From global forums to bilateral partnerships, there has been growing recognition of our security concerns and regional leadership. Yet, decisions like this IMF disbursement strike a discordant note.

How do we reconcile words of solidarity with actions that appear to enable a state accused of sponsoring cross-border violence? How do we ensure that development aid does not inadvertently reinforce the very structures that threaten peace?

It is not about taking sides—it is about ensuring that international mechanisms act with coherence, integrity, and a shared sense of responsibility.

A Call for Stronger Oversight

The IMF’s mandate is clear: to stabilize economies and support recovery. But that must be accompanied by conditions that reflect global realities. A country cannot receive billions in support while offering sanctuary—directly or indirectly—to those who destabilize the region.

This is an appeal for greater scrutiny, for public transparency in fund allocation, and for tying financial aid to measurable commitments toward dismantling terror infrastructure. That is not a punitive measure—it is a path toward peace and credibility.

In Closing

As a citizen of India, and as someone working every day to nurture hope, resilience, and ethical leadership in young people, I urge global institutions to exercise not just generosity—but discernment. Let us not allow the urgency of economic relief to override the long-term imperative of peace and justice.