NEW DELHI, JAN. 17 -- Afghan rebel leaders have publicly rejected statements by Pakistani leaders that they would have to coexist with remnants of a communist regime in Kabul as part of a settlement of the eight-year-old Afghanistan conflict.

"Out of the question," Yunis Khalis, president of the seven-party alliance opposing Soviet troops in their homeland, said in a telephone interview from Peshawar, Pakistan. "We'll not be able to show our face to thousands of our countrymen who have lost their fathers, brothers and sons in eight years of war against the kafirs {non-Moslems}."

Hezb-i-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, known as one of the most uncompromising of the resistance leaders, indirectly warned the Pakistani leadership against trying to dictate terms to the mujaheddin, as the Islamic guerrillas are called, telling a questioner, "We do not expect our Moslem brothers in Pakistan to ask us to share power with Soviet puppets."

In interviews with The New York Times this past week, Pakistani President Mohammed Zia ul-Haq and Prime Minister Mohammed Khan Junejo said the mujaheddin must make at least temporary compromises with some members of the ruling People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan to ensure a Soviet withdrawal of its 115,000 troops from the country.

Zia has spoken previously of some type of power sharing arrangement in Kabul, but the timing of his statements last week were widely viewed in Islamabad as an effort to encourage Soviet leaders to continue recent steps toward a negotiated settlement of the war.

Zia was quoted as saying the Afghan rebels "realize the need for pragmatism" and that an interim government including members of the ruling party is "not much of a price in my opinion."

In remarks directed at the rebels regarding a power sharing arrangement, Junejo bluntly stated: "You must accept reality." He and Zia indicated that a Soviet withdrawal was conditional upon participation in a new government by the People's Democratic Party.

The immediate public reaction of the resistance leaders, however, illustrates the diplomatic maneuvering that is necessary among the parties to the Afghanistan conflict as negotiations enter a crucial and possibly final stage.

Statements designed to have an impact on one party can lead to negative reactions by one of the other parties. This also is a problem U.S. policy makers have encountered as they have tried to explain the conditions under which they would end support for the Afghan guerrillas.

For example, in comments apparently meant to reassure the rebels of Washington's commitment to support them, President Reagan told interviewers in December that he would reject even a temporary U.S. cutoff of arms to the resistance if the Soviets agreed to a 12-month withdrawal timetable.

The negative Soviet reaction caused senior administration officials, including Undersecretary of State Michael H. Armacost, quickly to reaffirm the U.S. pledge of noninterference in Afghan affairs once a Soviet withdrawal began. The United States is providing more than $600 million annually to the resistance.

The remarks by Zia and Junejo also drew a sharp response this weekend from Pakistani conservatives.

Qazi Hussein Ahmed, leader of the Jamiat-i-Islami, which normally supports Zia, echoed the views expressed by Hekmatyar and Khalis. "For any solution, the Soviets should talk directly to the mujaheddin" and not try to reach an accord over their heads, he said. He went on to ask Pakistanis to ensure a flow of arms for the mujaheddin.

Pakistani and U.S. officials long have said publicly that the decision on the future Afghan government is "for the Afghans themselves" to make -- a theme reiterated in the Zia and Junejo interviews.

The two leaders also stressed that a Soviet troop withdrawal must be ensured before other steps can be taken.

While most of the funding and equipment for the resistance comes from the United States, Arab countries and China, it is Pakistan that acts as a conduit and has the closest contacts with guerrilla leaders.

All resistance leaders reject any compromise with Kabul leader Najibullah or others in the Afghan communist leadership. Some have hinted, however, that some members of the ruling Afghan party might be acceptable if they were known as "good Moslems" and perhaps had cooperated with the communist regime more out of desperation than conviction, according to informed sources.

The mood for compromise could become clearer in the next couple of weeks as U.N. special negotiator Diego Cordovez begins a new round of shuttle diplomacy in Kabul and Islamabad.

The Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda last week indicated that Moscow wants to bring the Afghanistan war to a resolution before the U.S.-Soviet summit in Moscow in late spring.Special correspondent Kamran Khan contributed to this report from Karachi.