economy

Here is what the reporters are saying: the people have come on to the streets, expressing their rage through marching, chanting, rioting, confronting the police, demanding an end to the current government’s corruption, and above all, and end to the austerity policies imposed by the IMF. The reporters say that “the city” has become a ground-zero for public agitation, and unanimous cries for an end to the tyranny of the IMF.

Which city are the reporters referring to: Santiago, Chile? Beirut, Lebanon? Quito, Ecuador? Port-au-Prince, Haiti? Algiers, Algeria? Baghdad, Iraq? Tegucigalpa, Honduras?

They are in fact referring to all of them.

A tide of discontent has now swept cities across the developing world, with [mostly young] people taking to the streets and mobilizing against the harsh realities of subjugation through economic instruments and policies that are either directly imposed or abetted by IMF.

The wretched of the earth, as the philosopher Fanon called them, today articulate their contempt for brutal austerity policies though civil disobedience. Security forces are struggling to dismount the public pressure, and many leaders are finding their careers on the line.

We are seeing the results of the public agitation in many ways. In Ecuador, the government has rescinded the austerity bill that the government had promulgated under the IMF’s auspices. In Chile, the President has fired his entire cabinet and promised all sorts of changes, but the million people on Santiago’s street want his head and nothing less. In Lebanon, every major street is blockaded and Beirut is in gridlock until the President and PM both resign.

The triggers, as usual, were trivial measures that were part of an austerity program. A small metro ticket hike in Chile, a tobacco and “Whatsapp tax” proposal in Lebanon, and some of other tax hike or public spending cut elsewhere. Yet the conflagrations grow wider and are being observed in great similitude around the world.

It is in fact a “humanitarian crisis” that the IMF wreaks upon the wretched of the earth, and that term is not being used lightly. The current head of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, actually expressed his vocal opposition to the IMF’s policies at the fund’s most recent meeting, reproaching the IMF for the miseries that its policies have wrought on the poor on the world.

Guteres urged world leaders “to listen to the real problems of real people,” and later told reporters that “disquiet in peoples’ lives” has sparked demonstrations around the world from the Middle East to Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.

In other words, the man who usually speaks out for war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Convention articulated his concern about what the IMF does. In a sense, that is a very accurate message to send to the IMF. Their policies engender “structural violence” which tyrannizes the disenfranchised without firing a shot.

“Even where people are not protesting, they are hurting and want to be heard,” he told the IMF. This is pertinent for us to observe in the international uprising, because the very same policies have been imposed on Pakistan. The IMF swooped in early this year to throw down the gauntlet, for a paltry sum of $6 billion dollars, in exchange for heavy structural changes that are very unlikely to be addressed in so short a span.

There is indeed a concentration of protesting elements in the capital at this time, but a careful negotiation process and active engagement has meant that, for the moment, Pakistan looks nothing like other countries that otherwise seem economically much better off but are caught up in whirlwinds of agitation.

In the meantime, inflation is rising, job losses mounting, and a growing number of people (albeit proportionately still small, thankfully) are reporting an overall dissatisfaction with life. This is the disquiet that Guterres has warned the IMF of as a generalizable experience of the third world.

Indeed, there is too large a disquiet pervades people’s lives, and the sorts of spending cuts and austerity drives the IMF exacts from poor countries, often for paltry sum of lending in return, exemplifies the problems that not just our country, but the world must contend with.

The writer is the Director for Economics and National Affairs at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS). He can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »