India asks IMF to review loans disbursed to Pakistan amid cross-border tensions after Pahalgam attack

India has asked the International Monetary Fund to review loans disbursed to Pakistan, an Indian government source told Reuters on Friday, as tensions between the South Asian neighbours escalated following a deadly attack in Kashmir.
India and Pakistan have announced a raft of measures after an attack on Hindu tourists in Indian Kashmir last week killed 26 men and there is a fear that the latest crisis between the nuclear-armed rivals could spiral into a military conflict.
New Delhi has identified the three attackers, including two it says are Pakistani nationals, as "terrorists". Islamabad has denied any role and called for a neutral investigation.
India suspended a critical river water sharing treaty and the two countries have closed their airspace to each other's airlines.
Pakistan secured a $7 billion bailout programme from the IMF last year and was granted a new $1.3 billion climate resilience loan in March.
The programme is critical to the $350 billion economy and Pakistan said it has stabilized under the bailout that helped it stave off a default threat.
India raised concerns with the IMF on its loans to Pakistan, asking for a review, a government source told Reuters without elaborating.
The IMF and India's finance ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The advisor to Pakistan's finance minister said the IMF programme is "well on track".
"The latest review has been done well and we are completely on track," advisor Khurram Schehzad, told Reuters, adding that Pakistan had very productive spring meetings with financial institutions in Washington.
"We did about 70 meetings ... interest has been very high for investing and supporting Pakistan as the economy turns around," Schehzad said.
The soaring tensions between the two countries has drawn global attention and calls for cooling tempers.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance said on Thursday that Washington hoped Pakistan would cooperate with India to hunt down Pakistan-based assailants.
Muslim-majority Kashmir is claimed in full by both Hindu-majority India and Islamic Pakistan, but each rules it in parts.
While New Delhi accuses Pakistan of backing an uprising in Indian Kashmir since 1989, Pakistan says it only offers diplomatic and moral support to a Kashmiri demand for self-determination.
First Published: 2 May 2025, 10:17 PM IST

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

20 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies

Mint

21 minutes ago

• Mint

Indian benchmarks drop 1% as investors fret over heightened Mideast tensions

(Reuters) -India's equity benchmarks fell 1% on Monday after U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites fuelled fears of a further escalation in Middle East tensions and pushed oil prices to a five-month high. The Nifty 50 and the BSE Sensex were down 0.9% each at 24,890.03 points and 81,659.09 points, respectively, as of 10:37 a.m. IST. All 13 major sectors traded lower. The broader mid-caps fell 0.2% and small-caps were flat. The U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, joining Israel in the biggest Western military action against the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution. Most Asian stocks fell on Monday, with the MSCI Asia ex Japan down more than 1%. Oil prices briefly hit a five-month high, while the focus remains on a potential military response from Iran. [MKTS/GLOB] "Worries over potential supply disruptions from Strait of Hormuz is driving the sentiment," said Vinit Bolinjkar, head of research at Ventura Securities. About a fifth of the world's total oil consumption passes through the strait, which lies between Oman and Iran. Higher crude oil prices are a negative for India, which depends heavily on imports for its energy requirements, as they could stoke inflation and widen the fiscal deficit. Still, UBS said it does not see a prolonged disruption to oil supplies. "We believe that near-term downside in stocks could represent an opportunity for investors who are underallocated to equities to build positions," the brokerage said. Meanwhile, IT stocks shed 1.8% after Accenture posted a third consecutive quarter of yearly decline in outsourcing orders as a cutback in U.S. government spending and tariff uncertainty pressured economic growth. Indian IT firms get a significant chunk of their revenue from the U.S. In contrast, small finance banks rose after the central bank reduced the mandated portion of lending to priority sectors to 60% from 75%. (Reporting by Vivek Kumar M; Editing by Sonia Cheema and Mrigank Dhaniwala)

Mint

21 minutes ago

• Mint

Israel-Iran war: DMart to Eicher Motors— Jigar Patel of Anand Rathi recommends 3 stocks to buy for the short term

Stocks to buy for the short term: Indian stock market benchmarks, the Sensex and the Nifty 50, crashed over a per cent each in intraday trade on Monday, June 23, as Israel-Iran war escalates further, crude oil prices rise sharply and investors dump riskier equities and rush to safe haven assets. As it is difficult to predict the trajectory of the stock market amid rapidly changing geopolitical scenarios, Jigar S. Patel, Senior Manager of Equity Research at Anand Rathi Share and Stock Brokers, advises traders to remain vigilant. "A decisive breakout above 25,300 could pave the way for a sustained rally toward 25,500–25,600. Conversely, any faltering near current levels could signal renewed caution. On the downside, immediate support lies at 24,700, with a stronger floor near 24,450. Until confirmation is evident, restraint remains prudent near resistance zones," said Patel. Jigar Patel recommends buying shares of DMart, Eicher Motors and Biocon for the next two to three weeks. Over the past month, Eicher Motors has witnessed a healthy correction of approximately 12 per cent from its recent peak of ₹ 5,906. Notably, the stock has established a firm base over the last 15 trading sessions, consolidating between its 50- and 100-day exponential moving averages — a sign of stabilizing price action. In the latest session, Eicher decisively broke out of a dual descending trendline, supported by a steadily improving Relative Strength Index (RSI), which has consistently held above the 40 mark and now stands at 61.42. "The confluence of favourable technical indicators positions Eicher as an attractive long candidate. Traders may consider initiating positions in the ₹ 5,530–5,480 range, targeting ₹ 5,900, with a stop loss placed below ₹ 5,300," said Patel. Eicher Motors Following a steep decline from its recent high of ₹ 4,557, DMart has entered a consolidation phase, forming a strong base around the confluence of its 50-, 100-, and 200-day exponential moving averages (DEMA). Notably, the stock has triggered a bullish golden crossover, with the 50-DEMA moving above the 200-DEMA — a technically significant development often interpreted as a precursor to upward momentum. Adding weight to the bullish bias, the stock has also broken out of a descending trendline, indicating a potential trend reversal. "Given this confluence of positive technical signals, traders may consider initiating long positions in the ₹ 4,300–4,250 zone, with an upside potential toward ₹ 4,700. A stop loss should be maintained below ₹ 4,100 on a daily closing basis," Patel said. DMart Biocon has recently established a robust base around the confluence of its 50-, 100-, and 200-day exponential moving averages (DEMA), signalling price stability after a period of consolidation. A golden crossover — with the 50-DEMA crossing above the 200-DEMA — further reinforces the emerging bullish sentiment. On June 19, 2025, the stock also formed a bullish harami candlestick pattern, accompanied by a close above the R3 Camarilla monthly pivot, strengthening the technical outlook. This alignment of key indicators suggests a potential upside move. "Traders may consider initiating long positions in the ₹ 353–348 range, with a projected target of ₹ 385. A protective stop loss should be placed below ₹ 332 on a daily closing basis to manage risk effectively," said Patel. Biocon Read all market-related news here Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, not Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions, as market conditions can change rapidly, and circumstances may vary.