Aleema Khan, the sister of PTI founder Imran Khan, recently warned that overseas Pakistanis could be urged to stop sending remittances unless the government addresses PTI’s key demands, including a judicial investigation into the May 9 events.
While this statement may appear as a call for justice, it raises significant concerns about its potential impact on Pakistan’s already fragile economy and the welfare of its most vulnerable citizens.
Pakistan’s economy heavily relies on remittances, which amounted to over $30 billion in 2023. These financial contributions from expatriates play a crucial role in sustaining families, supporting small businesses, and providing much-needed relief to the country’s struggling economy.
For many Pakistanis, remittances are a lifeline that helps cover essential needs such as healthcare, education, and daily expenses. If overseas Pakistanis were to halt their remittances in response to PTI’s political demands, it would cause widespread suffering among the country’s poor.
The real consequences of this move would not be felt by the political elite or those whom PTI claims to oppose, but by the ordinary Pakistanis who rely on remittances. The wealthy, who are largely insulated from the economic struggles of the average citizen, would not experience the same hardships.
It is the families across Pakistan, dependent on this financial support, who would suffer the most. The lack of remittances would increase poverty, unemployment, and the general cost of living, further exacerbating the financial difficulties that many Pakistani families already face.
Pakistan’s economy is already in a precarious position. Inflation is skyrocketing, the cost of living is soaring, and unemployment rates continue to climb. The Pakistani rupee has weakened against the dollar, and foreign reserves are at critically low levels.
A halt in remittances would worsen these issues, deepening the economic crisis and putting additional strain on the country’s public services and infrastructure. The working-class population, who make up the majority of the country’s citizens, would bear the brunt of this economic collapse.
Moreover, PTI’s threat to urge overseas Pakistanis to stop sending money raises concerns about the party’s true intentions. This move appears to be more about fulfilling PTI’s political agenda, which may be influenced by foreign interests, rather than working for the welfare of the Pakistani people.
The party’s actions, rather than addressing the needs of the common citizen, seem to serve its own political goals. This raises the question of whether PTI is genuinely working for the betterment of Pakistan or if it is following a foreign-backed agenda that undermines the country’s stability and sovereignty.
The potential consequences of PTI’s strategy go beyond just economic harm they could also pose a threat to national security. Economic instability can lead to social unrest, and such unrest can be exploited by external or internal actors seeking to destabilize Pakistan for their own interests.
PTI’s tactics appear to be playing into the hands of those who want to weaken Pakistan from within. By using remittances as leverage to pressure the government, PTI is risking an even deeper crisis, which could have long-term consequences for Pakistan’s stability and national security.
In conclusion, while PTI claims to represent the people’s interests, its actions suggest otherwise. The threat to stop remittances is not a move for the benefit of the common citizen but a political tactic that risks harming millions of Pakistanis.
The economy is already fragile, and the poor are struggling to survive. For PTI to use remittances as a bargaining tool is irresponsible and short-sighted. If PTI truly cares about the welfare of the people, it must focus on constructive solutions that benefit the nation as a whole, rather than pursuing political agendas that will only harm the very citizens it claims to represent.
