Janab Rafi,

With all due respect, the reality is probably between the two extremes.  There is no villain or no hero in this saga.  A little look at history tells us that (with proof):

1. Bhutto destabilized Ayub - after the Tashkent agreement -  and forced him to hand over power (while under martial law) to Yahya Khan, then refused Mujib's six-point program after he had won the election.  Proof: the only beneficiary was Bhutto.  What is the proof of Bhutto's influence on Yahya:  Bhutto declared himself the 'civilian chief martial law administrator'.  Wow - what an oxymoron - yes Bhutto was the chief martial law administrator - as a civilian!

2. Zia declared (on the record) that had Bhutto signed the agreement with the opposition, and not gone on a long trip abroad, he would not have overthrown him.  For the record, Bhutto had agreed in principle with the opposition to re-hold the rigged election, but left the country on a long trip before signing the accord.  Proof: look at the dates in 1977, and it all pans out.  Zia waited until July to make sure that the deal brokered by the army was carried out.

3. Benazir, in her first stint as PM, did not pass a single legislation.  She blamed the army for not supporting her.  In 1993, army invited her in and gave her support - still she failed.  Being a woman, she even failed to repeal the anti-woman Hudood Ordinances.

Come on, let us be fair here.  Army rule is bad, but with such jokers around, it is not so bad after all.  Today, Zardari's son has adopted the name 'Bhutto' as the last name, because the uneducated masses of Sind would not vote for him otherwise.

Regards,
Akber