The two leaders have not yet decided when they would go to Pakistan. But they are determined to be there before the 2007 election which, they think, will be "free and fair." They pin their hopes mostly on America which seems to have assured them on this count.

Benazir Bhutto still fears that the military's "mechanisations" would endanger the success of her Pakistan People's Party candidates "at the counting stage," as it did the last time by "changing the ballot boxes." In comparison, Nawaz Sharif is less worried. It's not that he does not anticipate the "manipulation." But he looks like a person who is prepared for a long, bitter haul.

Benazir Bhutto is also worried about her security. "They may kill me," she says repeatedly. In the same breath, she talks about the safety of Sheikh Hasina, chief of the Awami League in Bangladesh. Benazir Bhutto realises that many attempts have been made on Hasina's life. She sees some similarity in Pakistan. The politics of violence makes Benazir Bhutto concerned about democracy and she regrets that it is spreading all over.

The Charter of Democracy that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have signed at London says specifically that "terrorism and militancy are byproducts of military dictatorship, negation of democracy, are strongly condemned, and will be vigorously confronted.

" It is a well-considered document and has the stamp of intellectuals in Pakistan. I believe it was revised many a time before it was finalised. Its certain features can well be copied by India. For example, the Concurrent List of the constitution is sought to be abolished to assure autonomy to the states. When I asked Benazir Bhutto about the Baluchistan-like situation, she said "we propose to abolish the Concurrent List."

The Charter proposes to have a new procedure for appointments to top positions. Members of Election Commission, like judges in superior judiciary, will be confirmed "through transparent public hearing process." All senior postings in defence and security shall be made with the approval of the government through respective ministry.

What is really striking in the Charter is the unequivocal stand on the military. The Charter says: "We shall not join a military regime or any military sponsored government. No party shall solicit the support of military to come into power or to dislodge a democratic government." The two leaders will appoint a commission to examine military coups and removal of civilian governments from 1996. The same commission will also identify the causes of and fix responsibility "for incidences such as Kargil."

While talking to me, both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have said separately that the military would have no role in government. Both want the military to follow the Indian example to stay apolitical and defend the country. I checked with Benazir Bhutto whether the military was in touch with her directly or indirectly. She said no. "How can the military be in touch with me when President General Pervez Musharraf has instituted a large number of bogus cases against me?" Again, hers was a categorical 'no' when I asked whether she favoured the Turkish pattern which allowed the military to intervene unilaterally whenever it felt that "the constitution had been derailed."

In fact, she is critical of India for having a dialogue with the military regime at Islamabad. "You give credibility to General Musharraf and his regime when you talk to them," she says. She does not buy the argument that India has to engage him if it wants to discuss the confidence building measures between the two countries.

Although friendly off and on in the past, I have never found the two so keen to bury the hatchet with India as I did at London this time. Both advocate a "borderless" subcontinent and both want visas to go. They are in favour of the South Asian common market on the lines of European Union, with no restriction on travel, trade or business.

Their priority to have friendly relations with India is the main reason why the two have separated the "Kashmir dispute" from normalisation with New Delhi. In the Charter, paras on India and Kashmir are different. Para 17 says that "peaceful relations with India and Afghanistan will be pursued without prejudice to outstanding disputes." Para 18 says "Kashmir dispute should be settled in accordance with the UN resolutions and the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir".

The formulation on Kashmir may not be to New Delhi's liking but there is no mention of worlds like "the core issue," in the Charter. Nor do they talk in that vein during their address to the media. Specific references to the Shimla Agreement or the Lahore Declaration have been deleted from the Charter's final draft to shorten its length.

The press and electronic media will, understandably, be free. But the words the Charter has used are unsavoury. It has said that the media will be "allowed its independence." It is probably the feudal background of the two leaders that makes them employ such phraseology. In democracy, the fourth estate is like parliament, the executive or the judiciary which sustain the structure. All of them are equal in importance. Independence of one is not dependent on the other.

What is glaringly lacking in the Charter is the assurance on correcting Pakistan's history which begins with the advent of Muslim rule in India. This lapse is probably meant to placate the Muttahida Majlis-e-amal (MMA), a combination of six religious parties, which has assured its support to the two. Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif will be failing Pakistan if they are combining religion with the state, the idea which Qaide Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah denounced in his very first speech at the Pakistan constitution assembly. When I pointed out the history angle to Nawaz Sharif, he said: "May be, we should have an annexure to the Charter to correct this lapse."

Back in India, I found a statement by General Musharraf, asserting that constitutionally the existing parliament is privileged to re-elect him for the second term. Probably, true. But when both leaders of main political parties are looking forward to participating in the 2007 polls, it would look more credible if General Musharraf were to throw his hat in the ring after the election.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.