NEW DELHI: India raised concerns during Friday’s International Monetary Fund’s Executive Board meeting regarding IMF’s financial assistance to Pakistan. While abstaining from voting, India said, “Pakistan has been a prolonged borrower from the IMF, with a very poor track record of implementation and of adherence to the IMF’s program conditions.“India further highlighted that the recurring financial support has led Pakistan to amass significant debt obligations, effectively making it a ‘too big to fail debtor’ for the IMF.Read more: India targets Pakistan on IMF bailout package; abstains from voting over misuse of funds for terrorismHere’s why India abstained to vote on Pakistan loan package according to government sources: Decision-making at the IMF
- The IMF executive board consists of 25 directors who represent member countries or groups of countries. It handles daily operational matters, including loan approvals.
- Unlike in the
United Nations , where each country has one vote, IMF voting power reflects the economic size of each member. For instance, countries like the United States hold a disproportionately high voting share. Thus to simplify things, the IMF typically makes decisions by consensus. - In cases where a vote is required, the system does not allow a formal “no” vote. Directors can either vote in favor or abstain. There is no provision to vote against a loan or proposal.
Why India abstained?India abstained from the recent IMF vote on approving a loan to Pakistan not due to a lack of opposition, but because IMF rules do not permit a formal “no” vote.By abstaining, India conveyed its strong dissent within the constraints of the IMF’s voting system and used the opportunity to formally record its objections. India’s key objections included:
- India questioned the effectiveness of ongoing IMF assistance, noting that Pakistan has received support in 28 of the past 35 years including four programs in just the last five without meaningful or lasting reform.
- India strongly highlighted the Pakistani military’s continued dominance in economic affairs, which undermines transparency, civilian oversight, and sustainable reform.
- India firmly opposed providing funds to a country that continues to sponsor cross-border terrorism, warning that such support carries reputational risks for global institutions and undermines international norms.
