Why the West Must be Held Accountable for Enabling Pakistan’s Terror Machinery

Why does the West consistently reward a nation even as it orchestrates violence against its neighbors? Why does Pakistan receive international bailouts just weeks after launching terror campaigns? Are institutions like the IMF unintentionally underwriting terrorism in South Asia — particularly against Hindus and India?

Three moments in history expose a disturbing pattern of geopolitical apathy, if not silent complicity:

• In 1972, Pakistan secured a substantial loan of USD84,000 from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — barely weeks after launching ‘Operation Searchlight,’ a brutal crackdown that led to the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Bengali Hindus in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) from March 25, 1971 to December 16, 1971.
   
• On July 29, 1999, Pakistan received another major IMF bailout (approx. USD340 million) — mere weeks after the Kargil War, a conflict it provoked by infiltrating Indian territory and targeting Indian soldiers.
   
• On May 9, 2025, just weeks after the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu & Kashmir, where multiple civilians were targeted in a premeditated strike, Pakistan was again awarded USD2.4 billion in IMF financial assistance. 

These events are not isolated. They reflect a deeper malaise in international policymaking — where economic aid flows without moral scrutiny, and perpetrators are coddled in the name of global stability.

The Economics of Ignorance or Intent?

The IMF and other Western-backed institutions claim to operate under strict economic criteria, aimed at stabilizing economies and ensuring growth. Yet when billions of dollars are funneled into a state with a documented history of sheltering terrorists, misusing aid, and destabilizing an entire region, it is no longer just economic oversight — it becomes geostrategic negligence.

According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, Pakistan received over $33 billion in foreign aid from the United States alone between 2002 and 2018. Much of this came in the name of fighting terrorism — yet Pakistan simultaneously hosted Osama bin Laden and sheltered UN-designated terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar.

A History Written in Blood & Bailouts

In 1971, Pakistan’s military regime unleashed Operation Searchlight, which resulted in the killing of an estimated 300,000 to 3 million people, many of them Hindus. As the world watched in muted horror, the IMF disbursed funds to a government committing one of the largest genocides in South Asia.

During the 1999 Kargil War, Pakistan’s aggression led to the deaths of 527 Indian soldiers. Just days after a ceasefire, it was rewarded with IMF relief worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now in 2025, Pakistan remains on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list and faces credible allegations of state-supported terror. Yet, the West responds not with sanctions, but with a $2.4 billion lifeline.

The Target is Consistent: India & Its People

It is no coincidence that most of Pakistan’s hostility has been directed at India — specifically against its security forces, civilians, and Hindu communities. The Pahalgam attack was not an aberration. It was the continuation of a decades-long jihadist campaign, masked as ideological resistance but rooted in religious extremism.

Western institutions may claim neutrality, but when bailouts come weeks after bloodshed, they are no longer bystanders — they become enablers.

The Strategic Double Standard

Contrast this with the scrutiny applied to India. Whether it is India's defense acquisitions, internal policy decisions, or border responses, Western institutions and media scrutinize every move. ndia’s abrogation of Article 370 was met with lectures on human rights. But Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism, religious persecution, and destabilization campaigns are consistently met with funding and forgiveness.

This hypocrisy does not go unnoticed. Nor should it be tolerated.

What Must Be Done: Accountability & Reform

1. Conditional Aid Framework:
   Institutions like the IMF must tie aid packages to verified benchmarks on counter-terrorism and human rights.
    
2. Global Accountability Index:
   A UN-monitored mechanism must be created to publicly evaluate countries' use of foreign aid, especially when linked to security threats.
    
3. Reform of Voting Powers:
   Nations funding terror should lose their ability to unilaterally access international credit facilities.
    
4. Moratorium on Military-Conflict Aid:
   Financial aid to nations involved in active military provocation or terrorism must be frozen for at least six months post-incident.
    
5. Independent Audits:
   All aid disbursed to high-risk nations must be tracked and audited by neutral third parties to prevent misuse.

Final Reflections: Who Funds the Flame?

Can the world claim to fight terrorism while quietly bankrolling its engines? Why does global outrage only follow Western casualties but fall silent when Hindus or Indians are killed? How long will financial institutions claim economic neutrality while ignoring moral responsibility?

Until the world starts holding terror states accountable not just with words but with wallets, the bloodshed will continue. And history will not judge kindly those who paid for peace while financing war.