ollowing are excerpts from an interview with the president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The interview was conducted in English.

Q You are a prominent member of the antiterror coalition. Tell us what you can today about where Osama bin Laden is, whether you think he's dead or alive and how long the hunt for him is going to go on?

A I can't say for sure. It's a calculated guess that I could make only. First of all, whether he's dead or alive, my hunch is that more chances are that he's dead. I can't be certain anyway.

Q Why?

A Why I say it is because two reasons. I can make it three reasons. No. 1 is that we had intelligence information that he had escaped in the Tora Bora region before the bombing had started. And the Tora Bora region was bombed intensively. There are hundreds of caves there, each cave was bombed. Now, I don't think we have searched every cave, so therefore one presumes that he may have been killed in one of those caves. . . .

Secondly, intelligence information again said that he is a patient, kidney patient, and he needs dialysis treatment. And we also are told, my information says, that he got two dialysis machine imported, got it to Afghanistan, one for himself and for general public use. In the mountainous region, on the run, I wonder how he's being treated.

And thirdly, he's a prominent personality. He's about 6-foot-5, I believe. Moves around with 100-odd people, 100, 200 people at least. That is what is said. Now he would be a visible target anywhere around, at least certainly in Pakistan because he doesn't have sanctuary there. Such a large area for himself, even in Afghanistan, if he was moving in such a group, he would be visible.

Q The Saudis say, for instance, if he were dead his family as Muslims would be doing things that they are not doing. And that therefore they think that he is not dead. How do you react to that statement?

A I mean, what are the families supposed to do, really, if he's dead somewhere in Afghanistan and they don't know about it? So I doubt, if they don't do anything —

Q They just may not know.  

A Yes. Nobody knows. Even I — I'm not certain at all. So if you're not certain a person is dead or alive, the family at least will be taking him to be alive. And they're not going to do anything. Even if he is dead, I don't think they would go in for any major ritual . . .

Q The United States, in fact President Bush may lay out in a major speech this week the case for going to war with Iraq. How does Pakistan view the need to take the antiterror campaign into this new phase and what concerns do you have about how that might impact the theater in Afghanistan that is still in midst of military operations today?

A Well, Pakistan is facing problems in its own region. We have, as I have been saying, we have too much on our plate, too much on our hands internally, domestically and on our Western border, on our Eastern border with India, Kashmir. We would not like to be involved in anything more than this. We are in a stage of transition towards democracy, democratically elected government. Our elections are going to take place next month. And therefore the region — the atmosphere already is a bit charged. So doing anything which will further destabilize the atmosphere in Pakistan would not be wise on our part, and therefore we would not like to be involved.

But its impact, as you are saying, it certainly will have an impact of the local populations in Pakistan.

Q You mean an American attack in Iraq would roil, stir up the extremists in Pakistan?

A Yes, yes it will because it's the talk of the town. Everyone is talking about it. But it's impact on Afghanistan, I only hope that this is — whatever is happening in Afghanistan does not get affected by any operation in Iraq, because Afghanistan, the operation needs to be taken to its logical end, it needs to be culminated with . . . government established over the whole of Afghanistan. Leaving it half there would be extremely dangerous.

Q Do you think there's a risk of that happening because of the U.S. forces being thinly stretched in the region?

A I don't think so. I don't think the resource availability to the U.S. forces is much more — I'm sure any operation in Iraq will not impact on the military operation in Afghanistan.

Q But this is a sensitive issue. And we're having a kind of a debate in this country on the American role in the world. And on the Arab street there are criticisms of the United States, criticisms of policy between Israel and the Palestinians, criticism of going into Iraq at a time when the Afghanistan program is still going on. The worry about the impact on civilians. President Bush must turn to you as a Muslim leader and ask for your advice on how you see America's role. What do you tell him? Is the United States losing the battle for the Muslim street or is there a better way to wage it?

A One would give opinions . . . that the main direction ought to be towards resolution of dispute, resolution of political dispute. We must go towards resolution of all the disputes around the world. I think that is the best way of fighting any extremism around. So you've probably spoken of the Middle East and Palestinians — it needs to be resolved. There must be a political end to this dispute.

Q How is that related to Iraq? Do they need to do it at the same time?

A No, tensions are high. And there are a degree of — in the Islamic world and in the Middle East especially, people are seeing a U.S. role maybe biased towards Israel. So under these circumstances, undertaking an operation against another country, an Arab country and a Muslim country, will certainly have negative repercussions.

Q And so what would you advise?

A Well, I would — my view is that one should not, perhaps, get involved or one must develop consensus in the world, in the Islamic world, before undertaking any operations.

Q So President Bush needs to broaden, first of all, support and have some kind of deeper engagement in the Muslim world to make the operation in Iraq more successful? Is that what you're saying?

A Yes, certainly international consensus. Consensus in the Muslim world would be very important.

Q There's been talk of a new Bush doctrine of pre-emption. And there's also been a warning from Dr. Henry Kissinger most recently in a commentary that if the United States exercises this doctrine in preemptively attacking Iraq out of concerns for its weapons of mass destruction that India could act against Pakistan in the same manner. Are you concerned that this doctrine would get out of hand in that manner?

A There is a possibility all right, and there is a possibility that India could take a lead from this theory of pre-emption. And they may undertake an adventurous act. But I would like to hasten to add that here the situation is different. Pakistan is not Iraq and India is not the United States. They'd better not try it.

Q Let me go back to the most recent crisis involving nuclear weapons. The world had quite a scare this spring when India and Pakistan seemed to be coming toward a confrontation. What do you see at the moment as the state of risk and danger across the line of control in Kashmir?

A There is always a danger because this has been a flash point all along. We fought three wars with India on Kashmir. And even now, at the Line of Control we are killing each other almost on a daily basis. . . . And more than that, at the moment, after the escalation, after the troops were moved on the borders by India and we reciprocated, of course, there's an eyeball-to-eyeball contact. The danger lies militarily when two forces have the capability of operations. The intention may have receded at the moment . . . but the capability of forces confronting each other is very much there. Intentions can change overnight.

Q Now the United States asked you to intervene to make sure that there is no more cross-border attacks, and you say you have done that. What do you want in the short term from India?

A We have to start the process of dialogue. First of all, de-escalate, start the process of dialogue on the Kashmir dispute. And move forward, then, towards resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

Q You said earlier that Pakistan was in a period of transition to democracy. And yet democracy and concerns about it in Pakistan are very much on people's minds, the election commission has recently kept Benazir Bhutto off the ballot, Mr. Sharif is in a similar position. How can you make the case that your amendments to the Constitution and keeping prominent competitors out of the contest with your forces, political forces in the country, that that is the promotion of democracy? It seems the opposite.

A I would like to differ, absolutely. First of all, on these — the two leaders that you have spoken of, they have run the government twice before. They are both involved in corruption cases. They both misgoverned the country. . . .

Q Then you should be able to beat them easily, shouldn't you?

A No, I'm not contesting anything.

Q No, but they should be beaten easily in a democracy.

A There are certain rules of the game. Nobody has told Benazir to remain out. She could come back anytime. She went out on her own volition, she went out for herself. Nobody's telling her to stay out. She has been already convicted, she has been sentenced on two charges. There are about 12 other cases pending against her. She comes back and takes the legal course.

As far as Nawar Sharif is concerned, he went out on his own sweet will also.