This comes amidst a US media report that senior US officials have held Pakistan responsible for supporting, if not creating, the current crisis, in order to internationalise the Kashmir issue and seek UN intervention. Christian Science Monitor quoted a US official as defending India's action, saying the country had no choice.

According to the MEA spokesman, India has rejected out of hand the possibility of making the LoC ``a subject of discussion'' during the visit of Pakistani Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz to Delhi.

``We would like to make it clear that the comments relating to the LoC...cannot bethe subject of discussion. We call upon Pakistan to respect the sanctity of the LoC, give up its desperate and foolhardy attempts to change it and to stop its cross-border terrorism against India. A meaningful dialogue can only take place if Pakistan begins to act accordingly,'' the spokesman said.

The spokesman said there was international recognition that the infiltration was sponsored by Pakistan and cited the letter written by Clinton to the PM. The US President's letter, he said, ``marks the international recognition that the intrusion was from the Pakistani side of the LoC'' and should not be construed as ``third-party mediation''.

In Islamabad, however, Aziz continued to maintain that the LoC was not clearly demarcated, that it was India which had violated it and that India should accept that UN monitors be allowed to monitor the situation along the LoC.

But in the unusually strong statement here, the MEA spokesman said: ``The Pakistan Foreign Minister's suggestion is untenable. It represents anirresponsible and dubious doctrine which undermines established principles and can have extremely dangerous repercussions on the maintenance of peace and security.``(His) comments are evidently a demonstration of (Pakistan's) designs to manufacture a rationale for aggression and to gain for it an ex-post facto respectability'' and confirm that Pakistan's intention in makin the armed intrusion was to alter the ``well-defined'' LoC.

The spokesman refused to say, however, when the Aziz visit would take place, saying the proposal for June 7 had only been received today and was being ``considered''.

Aziz's continued questioning of the sanctity of the LoC has considerably agitated the ministry. Having recommended that Aziz should not be allowed to visit Delhi unless Pakistan first vacates the armed intrusion, the ministry is furious about the ``aggressive'' statements that continue to emanate from Pakistan.

The spokesman today gave detailed comments about the LoC, how the military authorities of both sideshad, according to paragraph 4 (ii) of the Shimla agreement, undertaken its delineation, and how the governments of India and Pakistan had on December 11, 1972 given ``their approval to the delineation.'' Adjustments of ground positions to conform to the LoC were also completed subsequently, he said.

The spokesman pointed out that the LoC had never been made an issue before. Neither the disposition of ground forces, nor of control of territory flowing from the delineation of the Line of Control has ever been questioned by either country and the interpretation of the LoC has never been an issue. It is significant that such fundamental issues are being raised in the wake of Pakistan's armed intrusion and aggression in the Kargil sector.

Christian Science Monitor said US officials ``privately point to Pakistan as the main culprit'' for the current tension along the LoC and have sent strongly worded messages to Islamabad.

``In a series of strongly worded messages and exchanges with Pakistani officialsthat border on the undiplomatic, senior United States officials have, behind closed doors, virtually accused the Pakistanis of supporting if not creating the current crisis -- in order to bring international sympathy for their claims on Kashmir and force action by the UN Security Council,'' the paper said.

``They say the size, planning and the organised nature of the operation in Kashmir, the remote location of the guerrillas in the hills above the Indian town of Kargil, the use of Stinger missiles against Indian jets, which suggests premeditative action, could not have been accomplished without military assistance and some strategic coordination from Pakistan,'' it pointed out.

Defending Indian military action on the infiltrators, the paper quoted a senior US official as saying that ``the Indians took a lot of casualties and the whole thing became so embarrassing that they (India) had no choice but to send in aircraft, some of which were then shot down.''

``This is a unanimous view not only in theClinton administration and the State Department but is shared by important allies. The Pakistanis may have miscalculated if they think this will force a debate in the Security Council,'' the official said.