This thesis examines how power is exercised in conflict-affected regions through political discourse, legal processes, and ideological narratives. It focuses on the Indian government’s 2019 revocation of Article 370, a constitutional provision that granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and explores how state authority is consolidated and legitimized in contexts of contested governance.
Article 370 provided the region with a degree of legislative and administrative autonomy. Its revocation marked a shift toward centralized governance and was presented by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party as a measure to promote national integration, economic development, and security. At the same time, it raised debate over constitutional change, federalism, and regional representation.
This study analyzes the revocation not merely as a legal development but as an exercise of multidimensional power. Drawing on Steven Lukes’ three-dimensional model of power, it investigates how the Indian state exercised formal authority, influenced public discourse, and employed ideological framing to shape understanding and response.
The research uses qualitative content analysis of political speeches, government statements, legal documents, and media reports from pro-government, critical, and international sources. The analysis identifies diverse framing strategies across themes such as national unity, constitutional order, regional autonomy, and democratic process.
The findings indicate that the revocation of Article 370 combined legal authority, agenda setting, and ideological framing. By examining this event through the lens of power, the study contributes to a broader understanding of how state actions are communicated, justified, and contested in complex political contexts.