The International Monetary Fund (IMF) finally agreed to offer loan assistance worth US 7.6 billion, with the first tranche of US$3.1 billion to be available right now under the Stand-By Fund Facility to Pakistan to avert an immediate bankruptcy on its debt payments. The remaining tranches will become available in the next 23 months time. This is not the end of the story. The country, however, needs over US$13.4 billion to be on the track to payback its debts up to next June. Pakistan has to payback the loans after five years, starting from 2011 along with a very high 3.5-4.5 percent interest rate. The bailout announcement was made by Shaukat Tarin, Government Financial Adviser, on November 22, at a press conference in Karachi. Once again the government in Pakistan could not find out any other way except going back to the IMF for obtaining funds to avert financial moratorium. This is not for the first time for the government to have contacted the international creditor to meet the chronic shortage of foreign funds. The government has a history of accepting the IMF loans on severe conditions irrespective how much damage was done with regard to policies and programmes including financial sovereignty. With more than ten interventions by the IMF only after 1988, programmes fell short because of the shortsightedness, mismanagement, misgovernance, and gross corruption on the part of the government managers and leaders. Who will assure that the eleventh intervention will not entrain any malpractice? The initiators of the previous programmes (Musharraf and Aziz) are just having fun faire at London, while the country is miserably and painfully suffering from financial tsunami on its payments. Had they put the economy on the right track, reserves would not have plummeted so quickly from US$16 billion to US$6 billion within months. It was not an economy but juggling and casino jackpot led by the Musharraf-Aziz click over the past eight years (1999-2008). With the coming of a truly elected government through the February 18 polls, going back to the IMF programme would be having severe implications in carrying out peoples-led policies, which will entertain mass unpopularity. The poor voters were not aware of the fact that roti, kapra, and makan, will be provided to them through the loans obtain from the IMF. It was ironic to note that provinces start criticising the Punjab Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif, who during and after the Ramadan, launched food assistance and two rupees roti programme in the country's largest province. Punjab is a province hard hit by rousing poverty. See how food mafia is criticising the pro-poor policies of the Punjab Government. Imposing tax on agriculture and cut-offs on defence spending are two most difficult conditions to be carried out by the government. While fixing up the stock market mafia is a lesser evil to be dealt with. The discussions on the IMF programme started just before the Friends of Pakistan (FOP) group was formed, consisted of the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Japan, on the eve of President Asif Ali Zardari's address to the UN Session in New York. As the Friends of Pakistan turned down Pakistan's rescue package request for the reasons best known to them, there was no alternative except to entertain the IMF program. The FOP has virtually showed no trust in the financial planning at least the way it is taking place right now. Otherwise they would had offered an alternative option with less conditional, more relaxing, and socio-economic development oriented to enable Pakistan to stand on its own feet. Even the IMF stopped the World Bank from offering a loans worth of US$300 million to exert pressure on Pakistan to come under the control of the IMF programme. IMF programmes are based on structural reforms in the recipient economy to enable the government to re-payback debt. Unlike the World Bank, IMF programme are not socio-economic development oriented. They push privatisation no matter how badly it would affect the employment, creates joblessness, and poverty. Normally social sectors are badly affected by the IMF prescriptions. They also favour globalisation, lessening of tariff and pulling out from subsidies. The IMF perceptions are included to increase utility charges on power, gas, and oil, taxes, and duties etc. The increase in interest rate in the economy of the IMF recipient country is an integral part of the IMF programme, which in turn ruins the local businesses and industries and promotes businesses overseas. Critics say that IMF programme also badly affect countries export and import policies as these policies are harmful for the local economy and beneficial for the industrialised world. The IMF programmes are only structured to help avoid the default situation on temporary basis. With these harsh but unavoidable conditionalities, no government could run a people-led economic planning. Going back to the IMF programme is the first failure of the elected government. With no qualified elected economic manager in the large 55-member Cabinet, they could not convince the people as to why they need IMF intervention instead of finding a less bitter alternative. On a very week premise, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani defended the IMF loan package and hoped that the package "would help bring good governance and better economic planning in the country," while speaking at a book launching ceremony at Karachi on November 16. One should understand that if the previous governments have taken loans from the IMF, they have never been appreciated as the poor people of the country have to bear the burnt of loans. With the present IMF loan facility, Pakistan's foreign debt will increase to over US$54 million, an unprecedented increase of 16.5 percent in existing loans liability, which is an intolerable burden on the poor people of Pakistan. The people are amazed that the government has gone to the IMF to such an extent, but could not cut down its own expenditure, rather trapping the poor people of Pakistan in the IMF vicious circle. The writer is a Research Fellow (East Asia) at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)