It is case of Pakistan's elite (and thus govt) living beyond their means....especially if you look at very low capital formation (investment) making it even worse....i.e the reason why elite have gone out of way to push a more hand-mouth consumption reliant economy with little investment compared to what could have been done (needing some larger social trust to do).
Of course the poor suffer the most from that even more...both upstream to it and downstream now.
Indian elite also clearly collectively live beyond their means (if you look at the relevant numbers concerning social development vs investment in say UP + Bihar, and gross inadequate transmission of the supply side growth to the lower rungs).....
....just because they run a tighter ship and social trust being higher overall (and India being a huge country to leverage) on it compared to Pakistan's elite/establishment/govt doesnt mean Indian poor are in better shape in some big way compared to Pakistan's poor (it depends as even the poor are vast populations to survey and compare)....both countries have inadequately invested into the matters at hand compared to what they could have.
Sri Lanka also had an IMF bailout because of their elite/govt. But Sri Lanka like South India invested a lot more into social development for the long run, hence their better performance on poverty too.
Argentina again its a huge elite/establishment thing that causes perennial problem there with IMF bailouts. Doesn't mean Argentine poor are automatically in same income/development rung as Indian poor.