Modi's 'tough stance'

Modi made the statements shortly before visiting Kargil on August 12, a remote area of the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir that was the scene of a deadly conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors in 1999. The Hindu nationalist leader blamed Pakistan for losing the strength to fight a conventional war, but continuing to engage in "the proxy war of terrorism." The remarks also came after India accused its traditional rival of violating cease-fire agreements in Kashmir.

India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars since independence in 1947 over Muslim-majority Kashmir, which they both claim in full but rule in part.

Pakistan's foreign ministry reacted on Wednesday, August 13, by saying that Modi was "repeating baseless rhetoric against Pakistan," and urging New Delhi to adopt a more constructive approach. "The press reports of Indian accusations, at the highest political level, are most unfortunate," the ministry said in a statement.

In a DW interview, Sumit Ganguly, India expert and professor of Political Science at the Indiana University Bloomington, says the remarks are Modi's attempt to avoid withering criticism from hard-line constituencies, which form his main support base.

DW: Why would Indian PM Narendra Modi accuse Pakistan of waging proxy war of terrorism?

Sumit Ganguly: Modi did try to strike a friendlier tone at the outset. However, the Pakistani cease-fire violations in Kashmir have forced him to take a tougher stance. He would come under withering criticism from his constituencies if he failed to take a firm position on the issue.

What does Modi mean by a "proxy war"?

The term has long preceded Modi. Indian policymakers have routinely used it to argue that the Pakistani military has relied on a host of irregular forces - jihadist groups who are supported, aided and abetted by the Pakistani military establishment - to launch attacks on India.

Modi also pledged to provide Indian troops with more weapons, saying they were suffering more casualties from "terrorism than from war." What could this mean in practical terms?

In practical terms this means beefing up capabilities along the border. Better artillery, more advanced mortars and possibly attack helicopters in the long run.

What implications could Modi's remarks have on the fragile Indo-Pakistani peace process?

I think that the peace process was stillborn to begin with. There is far too much internal turmoil in Pakistan to enable PM Sharif to make any credible commitment to Modi.

Why did the Indian PM choose Kargil to make these statements?

Because the place is fraught with symbolic significance. Kargil was the place where the Pakistani incursions took place after one of Modi's predecessors in office, Atal Behari Vajpayee, had initiated a peace process with Pakistan in early 1999. Vajpayee had indicated that he had been betrayed by Pakistan thanks to the Kargil intrusions.

Pakistan's foreign office has denied the accusations calling them "most unfortunate". What should Islamabad do more to defuse the tensions on the Indo-Pakistani border?

If indeed Pakistan has violated the cease-fire it should silence its guns along the border. In the absence thereof I fear that Modi, both because of his personal inclinations as well as his hard line constituencies, will respond with vigor.

This might involve giving the Indian military a free hand to act along the border, bolstering military capabilities and even calling off the Foreign Secretary level talks. Among other matters, he needs to convince significant segments of the Indian public that he will not adopt the conciliatory posture of his predecessor, Prime Minister Singh.

India expert Sumit Ganguly is professor of Political Science at the Indiana University Bloomington where he holds the Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations and directs the Center on American and Global Security.