Of Maps and Mirror Moves: How Pakistan’s Constitutional Shifts in Kashmir May Have Altered India’s Calculus 

Pakistan’s 2018 constitutional moves, which centralized its control over Gilgit-Baltistan and adjusted governance in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, are presented as a key catalyst for India’s repeal of Article 370. The narrative suggests these actions were perceived in New Delhi as a provocative attempt to alter the status of disputed territory. This allegedly prompted India’s National Security Adviser to recommend a decisive response, with PM Modi’s directive to “create favourable conditions” initiating a strategy in late 2018.

While long-held domestic political objectives were the primary driver for the abrogation, Pakistan’s maneuvers provided a timely strategic justification and accelerated the timeline. India’s decision was thus framed not merely as a reaction, but as a necessary countermeasure blended with internal goals of integration and development. This underscores how constitutional changes on one side of the Line of Control can trigger seismic reactions on the other.

Of Maps and Mirror Moves: How Pakistan’s Constitutional Shifts in Kashmir May Have Altered India’s Calculus 

The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, which revoked the special autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir, stands as one of the most significant and controversial decisions in modern Indian history. While the move was domestically driven by a long-standing political agenda and internal assessments, a compelling narrative suggests that constitutional maneuvers by Pakistan across the Line of Control (LoC) acted as a critical catalyst, accelerating India’s timeline. 

This theory, explored in the book ‘370: Undoing the Unjust, A New Future for J&K’, posits that the summer of 2018 in Pakistan set the stage for the autumn of 2019 in India. 

The Provocation: Pakistan’s 2018 Constitutional Experiments 

In May 2018, Pakistan’s caretaker government under Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi issued the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) Order. This was far more than an administrative tweak; it was a profound centralization of power. 

The Order effectively dismantled the limited autonomy granted to the region in 2009. It stripped the elected Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly of its most significant legislative powers, transferring them directly to the Prime Minister of Islamabad. The local council, which had some local representation, was sidelined. While the order extended certain fundamental rights from Pakistan’s constitution, it did so while placing the region’s judiciary under federal jurisdiction. 

For Indian strategists, this was a blatant attempt to unilaterally alter the status of a disputed territory—a move perceived as “integrating it in all but name with Pakistan.” 

Just weeks later, in June 2018, a second move followed: the 13th Amendment to the ‘Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Interim Constitution’ of 1974. Interestingly, the impact of this amendment is a subject of contrasting interpretations. The book argues it similarly consolidated power in Islamabad. However, a closer look reveals a more nuanced reality. This amendment actually devolved several powers from the Pakistan-controlled AJK Council to the elected AJK Assembly and government, limiting Islamabad’s role primarily to defence, security, and foreign affairs. 

Despite this nuance, the overarching narrative in New Delhi was one of alarm. The back-to-back orders were seen as a coordinated effort by Pakistan to tighten its administrative and political control over the territories it administers, thereby changing the facts on the ground. 

The Indian Response: A Strategic Recalculation 

Alarmed by these developments, India’s National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, reportedly briefed Prime Minister Narendra Modi, framing the GB Order as a “blatant violation of established provisions.” 

PM Modi’s alleged response was not merely rhetorical. His directive to Doval—“Mahol Banao” (create favourable conditions)—was a call to action. It initiated a comprehensive strategy with a dual purpose: 

• To blunt Pakistan’s narrative by exposing its alleged “assault on the cultural identity” of people on its side of Kashmir. 

• To begin shaping domestic and international opinion for a robust Indian response. 

Critically, the book reveals that the formal process for abrogating Article 370 began in November 2018, just months after Pakistan’s actions. An official file was initiated recommending the nullification of Article 35-A, a key provision under Article 370 that defined permanent residents and their special rights. 

This timeline suggests that while the intent to revoke Article 370 was a long-held ideological position of the ruling BJP, Pakistan’s moves may have provided a fresh strategic justification and accelerated the operational planning. 

Beyond the Reaction: The Principled Stance and Ground Realities 

However, to attribute the abrogation solely to Pakistan would be an oversimplification. The book and subsequent events highlight a more complex, two-track approach. 

PM Modi insisted that India’s decisions would be driven by principles of “good governance and development, rather than a mere reaction to Pakistan.” This was not just talk. The decision was deeply rooted in the Indian government’s internal assessment of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. 

The PM reportedly bypassed traditional intelligence and political channels, instead relying on a diverse group of unofficial ambassadors—former governors, bureaucrats, and even travel agents—to gather ground-level insights. The consistent feedback was a story of widespread frustration: 

• Rampant corruption and governance failures. 

• A deep-seated public anger towards entrenched political families. 

• A youth desperate for jobs, development, and a normal life beyond conflict. 

This firsthand understanding of internal rot, coupled with the perceived external provocation from Pakistan, created a powerful rationale for action. The government could frame the abrogation not just as a strategic countermove, but as a necessary intervention to rescue the region from misgovernance and integrate it fully with India’s developmental mainstream. 

The Domino Effect: A Conclusion of Interconnected Actions 

The events of 2018-2019 demonstrate the high-stakes, interconnected nature of the Kashmir issue. A move on one side of the LoC inevitably triggers a reaction on the other. 

While India’s decision on Article 370 was undoubtedly a product of its own domestic politics, historical promises, and internal assessments, it is highly plausible that Pakistan’s attempts to unilaterally change the status quo in Gilgit-Baltistan and AJK provided a timely catalyst. It offered a compelling narrative to justify a decisive move, accelerating a process that might have otherwise unfolded differently. 

Ultimately, it serves as a stark lesson in geopolitics: in a disputed region, no constitutional change happens in a vacuum. Every action is a move in a complex game, and each move risks setting off a chain reaction with unforeseen and lasting consequences. The repeal of Article 370 was a seismic event in Indian policy, but it may have been, at least in part, a domino that fell because another was pushed first.