Rehman, Aleena2024-06-112024-06-112024https://hdl.handle.net/11299/263883The following study provides an analysis of the conditions under which a state chooses to repress protestors in the context of Indian-administered Kashmir. Three hypotheses were tested, all of which were informed by the theory that democratic states are more likely to repress their citizens when they are not seen as part of the central polity. I examined five different instances of protest in Kashmir, controlling for size and relative location, and for each I determined whether or not expressions of religion, ethnonationalism, or separatism were present in the protests, as well as the extent of repression or lack thereof. I then used statements made by government and security officials in order to analyze the impact of these three expressions on the extent of repression faced by the protestors. The case studies demonstrated that all three types of expressions are correlated with increased state repression, but separatism has the most support as a causal factor in increased protest repression. Government and security officials are inclined to justify repression against separatist protestors by citing the integrity and sovereignty of the state, while also placing an emphasis on the importance of Indian nationalism. Their statements also indicated a lack of tolerance for any expressions of nationalism that extend beyond Indian nationalism, while also deeming certain sentiments expressed in protests to be more acceptable than others.summa cum laudePolitical ScienceCollege of Liberal ArtsOther