I'd like to point out that your note contains glaring inaccuracies and allegations on a Zia which you cannot substantiate. This kind of an answer which paints one personality as the ultimate evil who destroyed Pakistan is not only not true but will also not go down too well with the examiner.
Some points:
1. What's so wrong about having some madrassah degrees being equivalent to MA Islamiat or MA Arabic? After all, they study about 8 years for their madrassah courses and only madrassah courses approved by the HEC are granted equivalency certificates. Even Musharraf kept this going on during his reign.
2. Zia did apply laws from one school of thought for zakat deduction but after strong protest from the shia community in Islamabad they were exempted from the zakat deduction. This action did not have any long term effects on shia sunni relations.
3. Zia tried his best to bring about peace between Iran and Iraq during their war so that shia sunni divide can be closed. There is no evidence to suggest that he was against one particular school of thought.
4. If Hudood laws were sharply criticized by the international community then it means that they should not have been made? Pakistan is all the time sharply criticized by the same so called international community, so should Pakistan not have been made as well?
5. Why would Zia be at all nervous about the Iranian revolution? Iran was fighting a losing war with Iraq since 1979 and by the end of it 10 years later, Zia had already died.
6. How were shias empowered by the Iranian revolution? Check the state of Iranian economy and military in the Shah's era and now and do the math yourself.
7. If universities and agencies were really tasked with Islamic transformation of the society then what is wrong with that exactly? Wasn't the country made in the name of Islam? BTW, how were universities and agencies tasked for this goal. An explanation would be nice.
8. As mentioned before, Taliban emerged in the mid 90s. Zia had nothing to do with them.
9. Again, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi was formed in 1996. Zia had nothing to do with it either.
10. Zia did what he did to get support for another tenure? Seriously? Zia was a military ruler, his tenure ended the day he died. No one could have dislodged him from his position before that.
In the end, frankly, you shouldn't harbor this much hatred for a man who protected Pakistan's freedom from the clutches of communism. If he hadn't done what he did, we would have been having this conversation in Russian instead of English, FPSC would have been called Федеральная государственная служба комиссионной Пакистана and we would have been
ethnically half Russian.
You have to have balance in your approach.