'If it's war near Berlin, freeze funds. Near Delhi? give Pak cheque': IIM grad tears into IMF

As Pakistan lines up for a $1.1 billion payout from the IMF, IIM Mumbai alumnus Lokesh Ahuja has sparked a pointed conversation on global bias, power structures, and what India’s modest influence at the IMF really means.

In a sharp LinkedIn post, Ahuja calls out the “global double standards” at play—drawing a stark contrast between how the West reacted to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine versus how it continues to accommodate Pakistan, despite its deep terror links.

“Russia faced 10,000+ sanctions. Pakistan gets $1.1B from the IMF,” he writes.
“Same playbook. Different treatment.”

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Ahuja notes, $300 billion in reserves were frozen, SWIFT access was cut, and brands fled overnight. Europe responded with urgency—because the threat was personal. But when it comes to South Asia?

“If the war is near Berlin, it’s urgent. If it’s near Delhi, it’s… negotiable,” he says.

He also breaks down the stark power imbalance inside the IMF:

• US holds ~17% voting power
• France, Germany, UK, China — all in the top 10
• India? Just 2.7%

This is because IMF voting power is tied to a quota system—based on a country's relative economic size and financial contributions—not population or political influence. 

Quotas are calculated using a formula that considers GDP, economic openness, variability, and international reserves.

While India is a fast-growing economy, its overall GDP and financial reserves remain smaller than those of the US, China, and leading European nations. Though India is now the 8th largest quota-holder following reforms in 2016, the system still heavily favors established economic powers. Crucially, any major reforms require 85% approval, effectively giving the US veto power. This entrenched structure makes it difficult for emerging economies like India to gain influence, reinforcing a status quo that reflects economic clout, not strategic or regional realities.

“IMF decisions aren’t just about economics,” Ahuja writes. “They reflect proximity, power, and priorities.”

As India objects to the IMF’s decision—citing concerns over misuse of funds by Pakistan to sponsor cross-border terror—Ahuja’s post captures a rising national frustration: that international systems often serve their architects first, and leave emerging powers like India to play catch-up in the corridors of global influence.