Amidst escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, misinformation began circulating about India’s stance on Pakistan’s recent IMF bailout package. And who did it? Congress MP Jairam Ramesh and Congress loyalist journalist Rajdeep Sardesai began accusing the Indian government of failing to vote against Pakistan’s loan request. However, their claims misrepresent the facts about the IMF’s voting process.
The Claim
On Friday, May 9, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved Pakistan’s request for a 1 billion dollar bailout under its Extended Fund Facility, despite the country’s poor track record of adhering to IMF conditions. Following this, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh accused the Modi government of “chickening out” at the IMF by abstaining from voting against Pakistan’s loan request. He wrote on X (formerly Twitter), “India has only abstained from the vote. The Modi Government has chickened out. A strong NO would have sent a powerful signal.”
On April 29th, the INC had demanded that India vote against the IMF loan to Pakistan, which was considered today by its Executive Board. India has only abstained from the vote. The Modi Government has chickened out. A strong NO would have sent a powerful signal. https://t.co/AhAwNyHnYo
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) May 9, 2025
Similarly, journalist Rajdeep Sardesai echoed the sentiment, questioning why India did not explicitly vote against Pakistan. He posted, “India abstains from vote for loan to Pakistan at the IMF executive board meeting… Why didn’t we vote against Islamabad given the stakes involved?”
Later, Sardesai deleted the tweet.
Fact: IMF Voting System Does Not Allow ‘NO’ Vote
Contrary to the allegations, India did not abstain out of reluctance or indecisiveness. The IMF Executive Board’s voting structure does not allow member countries to vote ‘against’ a motion. Instead, members have only two options: to vote ‘in favour’ or to ‘abstain’ from voting. Therefore, the claim that India could have explicitly voted against Pakistan is false.
India Recorded Its Opposition
During the meeting, India strongly opposed Pakistan’s request, pointing out the risk of misuse of the funds, especially for cross-border terrorism. India highlighted that Pakistan has been a prolonged borrower with a poor track record of implementing reforms, noting that the IMF has funded Pakistan for 28 of the last 35 years, with little to no progress.
India argued that the consistent bailouts have failed to yield any significant reform, and Pakistan would not have sought another package if previous programs had succeeded. Additionally, India raised concerns over the Pakistan Army’s interference in economic policies, indicating that reform prospects remained bleak.
Why Abstaining Was the Only Option
Since the IMF does not permit voting against a proposal, India’s decision to abstain formally recorded its disapproval. This abstention, rather than indicating weakness, was a procedural necessity, marking India’s opposition in the most assertive way possible within the framework of the IMF.
Misinformation Spread
Following the IMF decision, Ramesh’s and Sardesai’s statements, along with some social media posts, spread misleading narratives suggesting that India deliberately chose to remain neutral on a critical issue. PIB Fact Check clarified the situation, stating that the accusations were based on a lack of understanding of the IMF’s voting process.
The Reality
India’s stance at the IMF meeting was firm and clear, opposing the bailout on the grounds of Pakistan’s economic mismanagement and concerns over misuse of funds. The abstention was a strategic move within the IMF’s operational limits, rather than an indication of the government’s reluctance to take a stand.
It is crucial to understand the technicalities of global financial bodies before forming opinions based on selective narratives. The claims made by Congress and Sardesai ignore the structural constraints of IMF voting and fail to recognise India’s clear opposition to the bailout.
