There is need for a third party. The people of Pakistan are demanding it because of the mess that the two major parties have made at the national level. The top leadership of both these parties have contributed to the culture of corruption. The new party will be multi-national, multi-ethnic, multi-religious. It will stand for the supremacy of the rule of law and address the problems of the people.

Do you think the situation in Pakistan will worsen in the post-tests scenario?

We were on the downslide. When I dismissed Benazir Bhutto's government, it was for several reasons. Had I waited 10 days, nothing could have averted the mess. Sharif's government had a good chance to get us out of it.

Unfortunately, he is on the same path as Benazir. He continues to suppress dissent. After the 14th Amendment, he has clamped down an emergency and suspended the fundamental rights of the people by using Article 232.

Even if there was danger, real or unreal, the government could have imposed financial emergency under Article 235 of the Constitution. That does not take away the fundamental rights.

Is Nawaz Sharif using the emergency to become a civilian dictator?

Yes. I am saying this very clearly. There is this very strong tendency in him to try and control all power. The Nawaz Sharif government has hit out at the real spirit of democracy. Today under the suspension of human rights, they can at any time put curbs on the press and suspend all freedoms.

On the economic side the government is incompetent. The Prime Minister does not understand simple concepts let alone the complex problems that confront the country. My first opportunity to see Sharif from close was when he became PM in 1997. I washorrified by his lack of understanding of things.

He has simplistic notions of terrorism. He told me the only solution to the problem of sectarian terrorism is immediate and quick justice. He said that the matter can be resolved if the trial is over within a month.

You have worked with both Benazir Bhutto and Sharif. What do they have in common?

Both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir, who come from diverse backgrounds and whose intelligence levels are different, share the common fear of a free judiciary. They feel that the economic crimes they have committed will be held against them by such a body. They confessed to me this fear. I was horrified by the similarity. The other common factor between them is that they both give precedence to private interest over public interest.

With such an irresponsible leadership, don't you worry about decisions in the event of a nuclear standoff?

The nuclear programme is not only in the hands of the PM. It is in the hands of the government and the militaryestablishment which also has a say in that. They have acted very responsibly. When I was president, we all had an important say in it. Nothing could be done by just one branch of government. I hope this will continue otherwise we can have a disaster situation.

Pakistan has never acted irresponsibly. Our nuclear programme is based on our security considerations. It is not meant for blackmail, neither for earning funds. It is not on sale. This has not crossed anyone's mind. Irresponsible leadership has taken us down and that's why it is important for me to come in.

Do you think an Islamic revolution is possible?

People don't even want that if you look at the performance of the religious parties. What people want is an improvement in their lives, proper law and order, fulfillment of basic needs.

Isn't that what the Sharif government is working towards

Sharif's priorities are new motorways, building the Lahore Airport and a mass transit scheme for Lahore and later for Karachi. It is arecipe for disaster given Pakistan's economic situation.

How will sanctions bite into the economy?

The government is incapable of re-prioritising. They don't understand.n Was this the correct time for Pakistan to detonate nuclear devices?This was the time. There was no other time. Pakistan has genuine concerns vis-a-vis India. In late 1995, US pressure prevented India from testing. US policy was sanctioning Pakistan instead. Same with the missiles. I told many US leaders about India's missile programme. The Prithvi missile is purely Pakistan specific. Pakistan had to work hard to have its own missile programme. Our nuclear programme was designed to meet the Indian threat. We did it.

Do you foresee progress in Indo-Pak relations?

The world has understood that there are these two large nations with nuclear capabilities, and that Kashmir is the source of the tensions. India has a bellicose Hindu strident government which is indulging in reckless talk. Pakistan would like to resolve theproblems.

The advantages would be enormous: trade potential, gas and oil pipelines coming from Central Asia and going all the way to India. India's western part is where the industries are concentrated and we can all be beneficiaries of a gas pipeline. The days of war are over. But India wants to be a dominant power in the Indian ocean. India's naval build-up is not meant for Pakistan but the rest of the region. This desire to play a role as the major regional power will affect every country along the rim of the Indian ocean. India and Pakistan need to concentrate on their economic development. Our social sector record is very poor.

Can't the LOC be accepted as the international border?

No. Because Kashmir is at the heart of the creation of India and Pakistan. There was a partition plan and we have to complete that.

Do you accept the possibility of an independent Kashmir?

Let us have a plebiscite. India and Pakistan have a position on Kashmir. We can't have independent states coming upto create further tensions.Your party is being perceived as a landlords' party. Are any political heavyweights joining you?

Unfortunately in Pakistan, most of the political heavyweights are landlords. I have not attempted to approach any one of them.

When you talk of a multi-religious party, will you work towards taking away the separate electorates system to allow the minorities to be in the mainstream of politics?

I am not sure that is what they want. I have been in favour of a joint system. But the other system allows them a guaranteed representation in the assemblies. In a joint system they may not get anywhere.