The United States recently unlocked a $2.3 billion bailout package for Pakistan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a decision that has stirred considerable controversy. Within hours of receiving this financial assistance, Pakistan launched an attack on India, raising serious questions about the timing and potential misuse of these funds.

India had previously warned against the disbursement of the IMF loan, citing Pakistan's history of utilizing international aid to fuel conflict and support military adventurism. Despite these concerns and India's objections, the U.S., wielding its veto power within the IMF, allowed the funding to proceed. This decision has led to mounting questions regarding whether the IMF is inadvertently bankrolling Pakistan's military activities and why the U.S. did not intervene to prevent it.

This situation highlights a critical issue in international relations: the potential for unchecked financial aid to exacerbate conflict rather than promote peace. The timing of Pakistan's attack, immediately following the IMF disbursement, has intensified scrutiny and demands for accountability. The international community now faces the challenge of addressing this harsh reality and ensuring that future aid flows are carefully monitored to prevent similar occurrences.

In response to the attack, India has taken a series of decisive actions, showcasing a shift in its approach towards dealing with cross-border terrorism and aggression. Operation Sindoor, a precision strike targeting nine terror hubs in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, was executed by the Indian military. These strikes were a direct response to a terror attack in Pahalgam that resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians.

Furthermore, India has suspended trade and port access for Pakistan and cut off water supply. This decision suspends the Indus Water Treaty, a pact that had previously withstood wars and tensions for over six decades. By suspending the treaty, India now has control over the release of water, which is critical for Pakistan's survival, particularly for its agricultural sector and major cities.

These actions demonstrate India's commitment to ensuring that every attack is met with a strong response, signaling a departure from past approaches. The message is clear: Pakistan must realize that such actions will not go unpunished, and there will be consequences for supporting terrorism. While critics may argue that previous surgical strikes did not deter subsequent attacks, the Indian government's stance is that these actions are necessary to impose a cost on Pakistan and deter future acts of aggression.

The situation remains tense, and the international community is watching closely to see how these events will unfold. The critical question is whether the flow of international aid can be managed more effectively to prevent it from being used to fuel conflict, and whether Pakistan will be held accountable for its actions.