New Delhi: India expressed concern about the financial assistance of IMF to Pakistan during the Executive Board meeting of Friday’s International Monetary Fund. Avoiding voting, India said, “Pakistan has been a long -time borrower from the IMF, with a very poor track record of implementation and the conditions of the IMF program.,India further stated that recurring financial assistance has inspired Pakistan for significant debt obligations, effectively made it a ‘big debtor’ for IMF.Read more: India targeted Pakistan on the IMF bailout package; Voting on misuse of money for terrorismWhy India voted on Pakistan loan package according to government sources: Decision in IMF
- The IMF Executive Board consists of 25 directors who represent groups in member countries or countries. It handles daily operations cases including loan approval.
- Against of
United Nations Where there is a vote in every country, IMF voting power reflects the economic size of each member. For example, countries such as the United States have a high voting share. Thus, to simplify things, IMF usually decides with consensus. - In cases where a vote is required, the system does not allow a formal “no” vote. Directors can either vote or avoid. There is no provision to vote against any loan or proposal.
Why stopped India?India did not recently did not allow the IMF vote due to lack of opposition due to lack of debt to Pakistan, but because IMF rules do not allow formal “no” votes.By avoiding, India expressed its strong dissatisfaction within the obstacles of the IMF voting system and formally used the opportunity to record its objections. India’s major objections include:
- India questioned the effectiveness of ongoing IMF assistance, given that Pakistan has got support in 28 of the last 35 years, including four programs in the last five without any meaningful or permanent improvement.
- India emphasized the continuous dominance of the Pakistani Army in economic matters, which reduces transparency, civil inspection and sustainable improvement.
- India strongly opposed providing funds to a country that continues to sponsor cross-border terrorism, warning that such supports bear the prestigious risks for global institutions and reduce international norms.
