My post has raised many questions. I shall try to answer these one by one.
There is an inscription in Qandhar which suggests that the city was part of the Ashoka’s Empire (perhaps the greatest King of subcontinent). Additionally, Begram in Afghanistan was one of the Capitals of the Kushans of Mahayana Buddhist Faith and Gandhara was one the seats of learning in the Buddhist world. I would say that area of modern Afghanistan was under the Buddhist influence for 500 years until 300 AD. Probably this was among the regions ceded to Chander Gupt Maurya by Seleucids.
Noone denied that Afghanistan was a centre of Buddhist learning and advancement, did they?
Hindu Shahi Kings who ruled the area of modern Afghanistan were Scythians (Sakas). These were East Iranian people who replaced Indo Greeks as rulers of Modern Afghanistan and Punjab and adopted Hindu faith. They were still around until the advent of Islam.
No. This is false. The term "Hindu" is trivialized by many, just as the term "India" is trivialized. Whether it's laziness or whatever.
The derivation of Hindu is this. From Sindhu comes Hindu. Now, Hindu was simply a "citizen" of Sind to the Persian foreigners who knew of the Saptha Sindhu. Remember Hindu is actually a Persian word.
Therefore when you say Hindu in this quote of yours, you're referring to a time when Hindu was not in reference to religion, but as a citizenship.
I do hope you know the derivation of the word "Hindu", and that Hinduism per se was never practised in its current form in Afghanistan.
Vedism was practised in Afghanistan to a degree, but this was a completely separate philosophy to Hinduism.
Hon Roadrunner, there is no such thing as Vedic definition of India. In Mahabharata epic, the areas of Pakistan mentioned are Gandhara, Panchala and Sindhu Desh. There is no mention of any state located in what is now called Baluchistan.
Well, that's all confused.
The Mahabharata is a Hindu book, not a Vedic book.
The Mahabharata was written somewhere in the Ganges.
It does include references to Gandhara, to perhaps Sindhu Desh ( I have not read it), but the important point is that the Mahabhrata was written much later than the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda was the book of the Vedics, and the Vedic people are the ones that "christened" the Saptha Sindhu.
I noticed a statue of Ganesh on the previous page, as somehow proof that Afghanistan was ruled by Hindus. This is ridiculous by any extent, almost as ridiculous as the one found in the Urals. All this proves is that trade between later day Hindus and Gardez inhabitants did occur. It does not prove they were all Hindus in Gardez or anywhere else.
Ganesh was a later day God of Hindus. He was not anything to do with Pakistan or Afghanistan.
I would tend to agree with Hon Vinod2070 that parts of Pakistan West of Indus have little historical connection to India whereas East of Indus region of Pakistan has a lot in common with the north Indians. Additionally, there have been long periods of history when even East of Indus region has been separate kingdom such as during the Indo Greeks, White Huns or Hephtalites (capital Sialkot), Arabs and Ghaznavids.
Thus my assertion that both arguments have historical basis. As Kuldip Nayyar says, he found Pakistanis as friend and foe combined into one.
The people of Punjab share a history to an extent with the people of Indian Punjab and a degree with those of the neighbouring state, but definitely not all of North India without clarification.
It's not really possible to say that there's a big differential between the west and east of Pakistan historically. If you look at most empires they've tended to include both East of the Indus and West of the Indus. You've given a couple of examples which are wrong. All these kingdoms were in a state of flux, constantly. Picking one kingdom during one time period and saying this represents the whole history of that kingdom is just disingenuous. An example here is the Hephthalite kingdom at 500 AD.
You can see that the kingdom included West and East of the Indus. If you go a bit before this however, you'll find it was only West of the Indus. So to assert the whole empire's chronology was based on the initial hepthalite period is wrong.
Whether you want to claim lack of movement across the Indus is up to you, I don't think it's particularly relevant. The people have generally been subjected to the same recent histories though.