Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has raised serious concerns over the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) recent decision to approve a $2.3 billion bailout package to Pakistan. The move has sparked criticism from various quarters, particularly in light of escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. Abdullah took to the social media platform X to express his disapproval, accusing the IMF of indirectly funding Pakistan's alleged cross-border aggression.

In his post, Abdullah argued that the IMF’s assistance essentially acts as a reimbursement for the military resources Pakistan is using against Indian regions like Poonch, Rajouri, Uri, and Tangdhar. “I’m not sure how the ‘International Community’ thinks the current tension in the subcontinent will be de-escalated when the IMF essentially reimburses Pakistan for all the ordnance it is using to devastate Poonch, Rajouri, Uri, Tangdhar & so many other places,” he wrote.

I’m not sure how the “International Community” thinks the current tension in the subcontinent will be de-escalated when the IMF essentially reimburses Pakistan for all the ordnance it is using to devastate Poonch, Rajouri, Uri, Tangdhar & so many other places.

— Omar Abdullah (@OmarAbdullah) May 10, 2025

India’s Official Protest at the IMF Board Meeting

The Indian government also formally registered its objections during the IMF executive board meeting, where the bailout was approved. India refrained from voting on the proposal, as the IMF only allows member countries to vote in favor or abstain—negative voting is not permitted. According to a statement released by India’s Ministry of Finance, India chose to abstain after voicing strong reservations about the IMF’s decision.

The Indian delegation raised concerns over Pakistan’s poor track record in effectively utilizing development aid and the potential for funds to be misused. India highlighted the risk that such financing might indirectly support state-sponsored cross-border terrorism, which has been a long-standing issue in India-Pakistan relations.

Breakdown of the IMF Package

The IMF's $2.3 billion support to Pakistan includes two components: a $1 billion loan under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and a $1.3 billion loan under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF). The assistance is intended to stabilize Pakistan's struggling economy, address its macroeconomic challenges, and promote resilience against climate and financial shocks. However, critics argue that the funds might be diverted toward military objectives rather than development.

India’s finance ministry stated that the IMF’s continued financial support to Pakistan, without addressing the country’s misuse of past aid, undermines the credibility of international institutions. The ministry further noted that such support "sends a dangerous message to the global community," exposing international financial institutions and donor countries to reputational risk.

Geopolitical Implications of the IMF’s Decision

India’s protest is not just a financial concern—it carries significant geopolitical weight. By voicing its disapproval, India aims to spotlight what it perceives as a global double standard that tolerates terrorism as long as it is cloaked under economic aid. The Indian government emphasized that rewarding Pakistan’s ongoing support for cross-border terrorism through financial assistance sends the wrong message to both the perpetrators and the victims of terrorism.

Moreover, the IMF’s move comes at a particularly sensitive time. India and Pakistan have seen a sharp escalation in tensions following India’s strikes on terror camps across the Line of Control on May 7. In retaliation, Pakistan carried out shelling in border areas, leading to civilian and military casualties and increased instability in the region.

A Call for Greater Accountability

As regional hostilities intensify, calls for accountability and transparency in global financial assistance are becoming more urgent. Both Omar Abdullah’s statements and the Indian government’s official stance underscore a growing concern that international institutions like the IMF must factor in geopolitical and security implications when approving aid packages, especially in volatile regions.

India’s abstention from the vote serves as a symbolic protest, signaling its refusal to endorse decisions that may indirectly embolden hostile actions. Whether this protest will prompt the IMF to re-evaluate its approach to lending in conflict-prone areas remains to be seen, but it has certainly reignited the debate around responsible international financing and the importance of ensuring that aid serves peaceful, developmental purposes.