The Islamic militants are not bothered about the need for a Muslim country to adhere to responsible behaviour in international relations. The struggle of the Lashkar e Taiyba, according to Maulana Muhammad Saeed, will not end with the liberation of Kashmir, it will continue till the whole of India is turned into a Muslim State. Then will come the turn of other centres ruled by non-believers.

As a citizen of India I am very concerned with the cease-fire which the NDA government has embarked upon. It is a dangerous path on which this government is leading the country. What happened to the promise made on January 1, 2000 by Union Home Minister L K Advani to issue a white paper on the ISI's activities in India. The promise was made immediately after the hijacking of IC 814.

Mr Advani was asked if the release of Jihadi outfit Harkat-ul Ansar leader Maulana Masood Azhar and two other jihadis was a setback to the Indian government's efforts to combat militancy, and he replied, 'For a brief while, it tended to give a boost to the terrorists. But the war against terrorism is not a smooth linear path.'

Is the cease-fire the correct path especially when, cease-fire or no cease-fire, the winter automatically restricts the infiltration of jihadis into India? I wonder if the cease-fire will be of any assistance to maintain my country's integrity and sovereignty.

Has the Government of India not taken note of the statement made by Pakistan's military ruler, General Musharraf during the UN session, defending the waging of jihad against India?

The correct analysis of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir was provided by senior US Congressman Gary L Ackerman, three days after Mr Advani promised the white paper. The US Congressman said the 'core issue in Jammu and Kashmir is none else than hegemonistic hopes of a certain section of the Pakistani national security apparatus that by either covert or overt actions, or combination thereof, India can be dismembered. It is the central aspiration that fuels all violence in Jammu and Kashmir.'

The systematic stages through which the game of the cease-fire is being played by the present government, and the expertise with which it is embarking on successive steps in that direction, spell the sure doom of what is expressly provided by Section 3 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1956. This reads: '(The) State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.'

Not only that, every minister for the Union has taken an oath to 'bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established (and to) uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India' in the discharge of his/her duties as minister for the Union. Are the NDA ministers faithfully discharging their duties? Are not some or one of them re-enacting Gorbachev's action, when 'the great humanist' of the former USSR, carried away by the praise from the CIA and the US president, quietly liquidated his country for a Nobel Peace Prize? Who are/is the Indian Gorbachev/s in our central government?

Article 1 of our Constitution expressly says Jammu and Kashmir forms part of the territory of India. And every minister is by oath of office bound to preserve and protect the territory of India. Has anybody asked the votaries of the cease-fire if their brand new political postures will preserve and protect the territory of our country? Although Article 1(2) of the constitution of the Islamic republic of Pakistan, 1973, does not provide for the state of Jammu and Kashmir being part of the territory of Pakistan, the votaries of the cease-fire are proving that Pakistan is an integral part of the Kashmir issue. They are giving meaning and content to Article 1 (3) (d) of the Pakistan constitution that the territories of Pakistan shall comprise of such territories which may be 'included in Pakistan by accession or otherwise.'

Have we forgotten what Pakistan's then army chief and its present military ruler said in Karachi in April 1999 that even if the Kashmir issue was resolved the problems with India would continue? In July 2000 General Musharraf said the question of Kashmir raised by his country could not be resolved within the framework of the Indian Constitution.

It is surprising that our media is not at all curious about what is going on. The questions I have raised are from the Pakistan constitution and from the Constitutions of India and Jammu and Kashmir.

It needs to be clearly understood that each and every leader of Pakistan has tried to subvert the Constitutions of India and Jammu and Kashmir with the sole objective of weaning away the state from the Indian Union.

Congressman Ackerman rightly said Pakistan's game plan is very simple. It is for the creation of Islamic sovereignty in South Asia, from Afghanistan to Central Asia, which would necessarily include India. That is why the Taleban regime in Afghanistan is protected by Pakistan. Pakistani and the foreign jihadis are not conducting a proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir, but engaged in an Islamic crusade, waging jihad. Our press is kind to describe the jihadis as militants. Names do matter. By omitting to describe the jihadis as jihadis, the real character of the fight going on in the state is camouflaged. There is much in a name.

Hasan Askari Rizvi, the renowned military historian of the Pakistan army, in his recent book, Military, State and Society in Pakistan, writes it is the United States that promoted all military take-overs in Pakistan, be it in 1958, 1969, 1977 and/or 1999. He says the army in Pakistan always kept total control of the country's foreign policy as regards Afghanistan and India. Now, it also has total control over the nuclear arsenal.

Does not the government understand that the Taleban has manipulated conflicts throughout Central Asia and South Asia by helping the cause of Islamic jihadi militants and allowed those jihadi militant groups to set up training camps in Afghanistan? The Taleban has provided bases to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan which in April 1999 launched a major rebellion in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan using the Taleban-controlled city of Mazar-e-Sharif as a base. The Taleban plays host to Islamic radicals and extremist groups from Iran, China and Pakistan.

The IC 814 hijacking ended in Kandhar, Afghanistan, only because the five Harkat-ul Mujahideen hijackers were aided by the Taleban. This lesson the government must have learnt first hand, because the Indian escort for the three men the hijackers wanted in exchange for the passengers and crew was our external affairs minister.

Such confirmation of Taleban-aided cross border terrorism should have prepared our government understand the real nature of the problem it is faces. It should have recognised it is not only Pakistan we have to deal with now, but also the Taleban over whom even Pakistan has neither the will nor capacity to exercise control. The jihad we face in India is as much of Pakistani origin as it is of Taleban origin.

Pakistan's role, as was rightly commented upon by Madeleine Albright, the then US secretary of state, was to provide transit for Harakat-ul Mujahideen and other foreign jihadis operating in India. For the first time in its May 2000 report, the US state department identified South Asia as a major hub of international terrorism, accusing its traditional ally Pakistan and the Taleban of providing a safe haven and support for international terrorist groups.

Let us understand Pakistan's unequivocal present helplessness. Sixty killers of Shias in Pakistan enjoy the Taleban's hospitality. It is an open secret that the Taleban has not responded positively to several Pakistan demands to deport its nationals wanted for the sectarian killings. The Taleban has officially announced that these Pakistanis will not be handed over to Islamabad.

Pakistan's helplessness became evident when General Musharraf was unable to fulfil his assurance of May 2000 to the visiting US under-secretary of state of curbing Taleban-sponsored terrorism in South Asia.

The Washington Post, referring to that assurance reported in its issue of June 5, 2000, commented, 'But instead, Musharraf made several statements last week in support of the Taleban saying their friendly relations are important to Pakistan's security and his government cannot interfere with Afghan issues.'

Commenting on what the Post reported, Rifaat Hussain, professor of strategic studies at Pakistan's Quaid-i-Azam university, said the military and Islamic forces in Pakistan appeared to have pushed General Musharraf to back off on the Taleban issue.

Does the hope of a Nobel Prize haunt those responsible for extending the cease-fire beyond January 26?

Design: Dominic Xavier

P N Lekhi, the well known lawyer, has fought many cases of public interest.

The Rediff Specials