WITH international lending institutions apparently calling the shots in terms of Pakistan’s economy, one can easily draw parallels with how the East India Company spread its tentacles back in the day.

Initially established in the early 17th century as a trading organisation focused on spices and textiles, the East India Company expanded its influence by forging alliances with local rulers and capitalising on rivalries among Indian states. A pivotal moment came with the Battle of Plassey in 1757, where the Company’s victory over the Nawab of Bengal enabled it to seize control of the prosperous Bengal region.

This success was followed by a series of conflicts, including the Anglo-Mysore Wars and the Anglo-Sikh Wars, which further extended the Company’s territorial reach. By the late 18th century, it had developed a comprehensive administrative framework, effectively governing significant portions of India.

By the mid-19th century, the Company’s power had grown so extensive that it ruled large areas until the British Crown assumed direct control following the War of Independence in 1857, and that stretch lasted a good 90 years till 1947.

In contemporary times, the Interna-tional Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and other lending institutions have waged their own agenda-driven wars against dying or struggling economies, like Pakistan, exerting significant influence over national governance. They often prioritise their own agendas way over the welfare of the people.

Pakistan finds itself caught in a vicious cycle of borrowing that leads to increasing debt without fostering sustainable development. This frequently results in austerity measures that disproportionately affect the poor. Funds from international institutions are often mismanaged or diverted by corrupt officials instead of being used for public projects that could benefit the economy and society at large. Unfortunately, these institutions frequently overlook such issues, thereby placing undue pressure on the people.

The conditions tied to loans often force governments to implement policies that may not align with the interests of their citizens, leading to public discontentment. As debt continues to rise, there are growing concerns that foreign creditors may eventually seize control over national assets, further undermining sovereignty in a manner reminiscent of the East India Company’s historical impact. The critical question is: who is responsible for such state of affairs; the lenders or the ones seeking their assistance?

Abdul Hamid Daccani
Karachi

Published in Dawn, July 18th, 2026