Glass Houses: Pakistan’s Constitutional Hypocrisy While Criticising India’s Democratic Moves in Kashmir

by Ashu Mann

In a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, Pakistan continues to level accusations against India for its democratic actions in Jammu & Kashmir — particularly post the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 — while its own house remains in shambles.

From constitutional breakdowns and military interference in politics to the suppression of ethnic minorities and systemic disenfranchisement in Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK), Islamabad’s rhetoric reeks of duplicity.

As India continues its integration of Jammu & Kashmir within its constitutional framework, Pakistan’s own record exposes a glaring contrast between democratic governance and authoritarian control.

Pakistan’s Empty Rhetoric vs India’s Democratic Integration

Pakistan’s repeated international campaigns to label India’s move to abrogate Article 370 as undemocratic have gained little traction globally. In reality, the revocation was a constitutional decision ratified by both houses of India’s Parliament, an institution representing over a billion citizens. Since then, Jammu & Kashmir has seen increased investments, grassroots democratic elections, and stronger local governance.

In contrast, Pakistan’s governance in PoJK and Gilgit-Baltistan remains fundamentally flawed. Neither region is constitutionally integrated into Pakistan. They remain in a limbo — governed by administrative orders issued from Islamabad, with local voices largely ignored.

While India’s union territory status for J&K allows for political participation and fundamental rights, PoJK’s governance is marked by constitutional ambiguity and denial of basic democratic freedoms.

Constitutional Fragility and Military Rule in Pakistan

One of the starkest differences between India and Pakistan lies in the role of the military in politics. India’s military remains under robust civilian control, while Pakistan’s armed forces routinely undermine its constitution and civilian governments.

Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan has oscillated between military dictatorships and fragile civilian rule. The Constitution of Pakistan has been suspended multiple times — most notably during coups in 1958, 1977, and 1999. Military rulers like Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf not only ruled with impunity but also amended the constitution to legitimise their authority.

This repeated subversion of constitutional norms undercuts Pakistan’s legitimacy when it claims to champion democratic rights for Kashmiris. India, despite facing terrorism and cross-border aggression in Kashmir, has preserved constitutional governance, independent institutions, and a vibrant press.

Suppression in PoJK and Gilgit-Baltistan

Pakistan’s governance in PoJK paints a grim picture of systematic suppression. The PoJK Constitution (Interim Constitution Act, 1974) forbids political parties or candidates from contesting elections if they do not endorse accession to Pakistan, a blatant violation of democratic choice. Additionally, reports of enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and curbs on press freedom have emerged regularly from these regions.

Gilgit-Baltistan, treated as a colony rather than a constitutional province, continues to suffer from legal limbo. Despite demands for full provincial status and representation in Pakistan’s National Assembly, the region has only limited local autonomy and no constitutional safeguards. India, in contrast, grants political representation to its entire population, including in the erstwhile state of J&K.

Enforced Disappearances and Human Rights Abuses

Pakistan’s domestic human rights record is appalling. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and international watchdogs like Amnesty International, enforced disappearances of Baloch, Sindhi, Pashtun, and even Kashmiri activists by state agencies are widespread. The missing persons crisis is not only unaddressed but also often denied by Islamabad.

This systemic repression undercuts Pakistan’s moral authority to speak on behalf of Kashmiris. The contrast is particularly sharp in light of India’s commitment to constitutional remedies and judicial review, even in conflict zones.

Disenfranchisement and Religious Persecution

Religious minorities in Pakistan — Ahmadis, Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians — face institutional discrimination and legal persecution. The Constitution of Pakistan bars Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslims, and blasphemy laws are routinely misused to target minorities and dissenters. In stark contrast, India’s secular constitution provides full political and legal rights to all citizens, irrespective of religion.

Kashmiri Pandits, who were driven out of the Valley by Islamist terror groups in the 1990s, are now being engaged with and offered incentives to return. Meanwhile, Pakistan remains silent on the status of religious and ethnic minorities within its own territory.

Pakistan’s Global Narrative is Falling Apart

While Pakistan continues its attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue through emotional appeals and misinformation campaigns, global audiences are increasingly aware of its double standards. The lack of traction at the UN, OIC, and Western capitals reflects this erosion of credibility.

India’s path in Jammu & Kashmir has been legal, democratic, and increasingly transparent. It stands on the strength of its Constitution and the will of its people. Pakistan, by contrast, is shackled by a military-controlled state, constitutional breakdowns, and repressive governance in the very regions it claims to champion.

In the final analysis, those living in glass houses would do well not to throw stones. Pakistan must first address its own systemic failures before attempting to criticise the democratic choices of the world’s largest democracy.

About Author

Ashu Mann is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. He was awarded the Vice Chief of the Army Staff Commendation card on Army Day 2025. He is pursuing a PhD from Amity University, Noida, in Defence and Strategic Studies. His research focuses include the India-China territorial dispute, great power rivalry, and Chinese foreign policy.