On Saturday, November 8, 2025, two separate but strikingly parallel developments unfolded in India and Pakistan, each centering on the role and resilience of constitutional institutions in the face of mounting political and military pressures. In Pakistan, sweeping constitutional amendments aimed at strengthening military command structures have ignited debate over civilian oversight and the balance of power. Meanwhile, in the Indian state of Karnataka, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah leveled serious accusations against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), alleging systematic voter fraud and the subjugation of independent constitutional bodies, most notably the Election Commission.
Pakistan’s law minister, Azam Nazeer Tarar, tabled the 27th Constitutional Amendment Bill in the country’s upper house, marking a pivotal moment in the country’s civil-military relations. According to Dawn, the amendment seeks to revise Article 243 of the Constitution to formally enshrine the appointments and parallel ranks of the Army, Air, and Naval chiefs. This move, Tarar emphasized, was motivated by “lessons” learned from recent India-Pakistan tensions, including India’s Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, which targeted terror sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, resulting in over 100 militants killed and several key Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) camps destroyed.
Tarar explained, “Recent Pakistan-India tensions have taught us many lessons. The nature and strategy of war have completely changed. Appointment procedures and some positions were previously in the Army Act but were not mentioned in the 1973 Constitution. Parallel ranks exist worldwide for Air Chief and Naval Chief.” The law minister’s remarks underscored the urgency of aligning Pakistan’s constitutional framework with the realities of modern warfare, where rapid decision-making and unified command are deemed essential.
Yet, the proposed changes have not gone unchallenged. Legal experts and political critics, as reported by Dawn, argue that such institutional adjustments do not necessarily warrant a constitutional amendment. Many believe that operational reforms—such as modernizing command structures or creating a Chief of Defence Staff-type position—could be achieved through ordinary legislation or defense rules. They warn that amending Article 243 risks expanding military autonomy under the guise of structural integration, potentially sidelining civilian oversight and weakening democratic checks and balances.
The details of the 27th Amendment are sweeping. It would constitutionally recognize the rank of field marshal, previously only an honorary title, and create a new position: Commander of Defence Forces (CDF). This central figure would oversee the army, navy, and air force, consolidating command in a way that could effectively reduce the operational control of both the president and prime minister. The amendment also allows for tenure extensions for the army chief, centralizes civilian government functions, and reduces provincial autonomy by shifting ministries like education and population welfare under federal control. Critics say these changes could provide Field Marshal Asim Munir, recently promoted just ten days after the May ceasefire, with legal security, an extended tenure, and unprecedented leverage in national affairs.
Adding to the complexity is the legal ambiguity introduced by the previous 26th Amendment, which extended the army chief’s tenure from three to five years. With Munir’s promotion to field marshal—a rank not previously mentioned in the Constitution—questions have arisen about whether his term automatically extends under the new law or if a fresh notification is required. As Dawn notes, this uncertainty has become the focal point of debate: Is the 27th Amendment truly about resolving technicalities, or is it a strategic move to further entrench the military’s influence within Pakistan’s constitutional framework?
While Pakistan grapples with the implications of military centralization, across the border in India, the health of constitutional democracy is also under fierce scrutiny. In Bengaluru, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, speaking at the KPCC office, accused the BJP of not only spreading lies but also institutionalizing voter fraud on a national scale. He alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had “destroyed the sanctity of constitutional institutions,” turning them into mere subordinates of the central government. “After Modi became Prime Minister, all constitutional institutions have lost their independence and integrity. The Election Commission, CBI and other agencies are no longer autonomous—they have become subservient to the central government,” Siddaramaiah declared, according to The Bengaluru Live.
At the heart of the Congress party’s allegations is a trove of documentary evidence, compiled after months of analysis and field verification, which reportedly exposes widespread voter manipulation. Siddaramaiah credited Congress leader Rahul Gandhi with bringing these issues to the fore, especially in the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha constituency. “Rahul Gandhi has placed before the nation detailed records proving how BJP came to power through organised voter fraud in multiple Assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies,” Siddaramaiah said. He further described such actions as “treason against democracy.”
The Chief Minister expressed his frustration with the Election Commission’s silence in response to Congress’ repeated questions and publicized evidence. “Ambedkar made it clear that executive interference in the electoral process destroys democracy. Modi has done exactly that—by converting the Election Commission into a tool of his government,” he charged. Siddaramaiah’s remarks channeled a broader anxiety about the erosion of institutional independence, echoing concerns raised in Pakistan over the centralization of military power.
As part of its “Save Democracy, Protect Constitution” campaign, the Karnataka Congress has collected over 1.12 crore signatures from citizens demanding the protection of voting rights and action against alleged election irregularities. “More than one crore people in Karnataka have signed petitions demanding protection of voting rights and action against election irregularities,” Siddaramaiah stated. The signatures are to be submitted to both the Election Commission of India and the President of India, signaling the party’s determination to escalate the issue to the highest constitutional authorities.
The political storm has drawn in other senior Congress leaders, including Deputy CM D.K. Shivakumar and Youth Congress President Manjunath, who joined Siddaramaiah at the press conference. The party has vowed to continue its campaign until electoral integrity is restored. “We will wage a sustained movement to defend democracy and constitutional values. This is not just Congress’ fight—it is a people’s fight,” Siddaramaiah proclaimed. “When constitutional institutions surrender to political power, it becomes the duty of citizens to resist.”
These parallel stories from Pakistan and India highlight a shared regional anxiety: the fragility of democratic institutions when confronted by powerful political or military actors. Whether through constitutional amendments that centralize military power or allegations of electoral manipulation that undermine public trust, both countries are wrestling with the question of how to safeguard the independence and integrity of the very institutions meant to uphold democracy. As these debates rage on, the eyes of both nations—and indeed, the world—remain fixed on the evolving relationship between power and principle in South Asia.
