@ The Topic
It is disheartening to see a fellow jatt being so confused about our identity, to the point of writing a nonsense article with little coherence. The concept of our foundation is quite clear and requires little more than a cursory glance at
real history for the perceptive mind to understand. Look to your east, would the Republic of India today have been one if there wasn't the common thread of hinduism, its culture, identity, and history combined, to bind disparate ethnic groups into one state? What other reason would they have to be together, from an assamese or punjabi to a tamil or keralite? I've seen some right wing indian members here agree with that view.
So, as elucidated by the two nation theory, Islam and our Muslim identity is also the binding factor which creates a feeling of Pakistani nationhood. Before Pakistan, the people of Pakistan (I can speak about native Punjabis and Sindhis) mostly lived on these lands for millennia, so our identity is also partially composed of that, but superseded by the brotherhood of Islam. At any rate, at this stage of the nation's maturity, there should really be no need to ponder over the raison d'etre and identity. We are here, and will remain here, we've withstood the test of time and will continue to do so till the day of judgement. The primary focus should be, of course clichéd but necessary, alleviating our common people's plight and suffering.
@ Off topic
@
KingMamba If you are truly interested in anthropology of how south Asia was populated in the period between 60,000 and 10,000 ybp, then I would recommend looking into recent scholarship about it which is illuminating despite leaving some open ended questions.
For instance, the Aryan Invasion theory has been squarely debunked of late, but even by that line of argument, the western scholars consider the earlier inhabitants and founders of the Indus valley civilization as dravidians before people of Centrial Asian origins invaded (or likely migrated) in waves to the this region.
If that does not suit you, then I suppose the Aryan theory goes out of the window
Now the more serious and peer-reviewed scholarship which rubbishes the Aryan-dravidian divide, still holds a somewhat ambiguous stance towards the ethnic or linguistic characteristics of IVC people. In fact it is one of the most interesting areas of anthropology!
But the line of research which is slowly gaining most acceptance, draws a connection between the IVC language and an extinct elamo-dravidian language. Of course one branch of that ethno-linguistic group, the Elamites, eventually became extinct after Iranians moved to southern parts of present-day Iran from Central Asia. But the other branch, luckily, exists in the form of our Brahui speakers and the dravidians of South India. In fact, some scholars have drawn symbolic and other connections between recovered scripts and the Tamil language, as it is considered as one of the oldest continuous dravidian languages and least "polluted" by Indo-Aryan influence.
Here's a couple of references if you are interested in further reading.
Clyde Winters, Current Science, Vol. 103 No. 10, 25 November, 2012
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/103/10/1220.pdf
Asko Parpola, University of Helsinki, Finland
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/00133/_A_Dravidian_Soluti_133901a.pdf
Btw Sir, weren't you a Syed?
j/k It's best to be open minded and scientific with regards to our shared heritage. We can deny them the legacy of Sher Shah Suri, the Lodhis/Khiljis and Mughals
, but not pre-Islamic history of Punjab and Sindh.
when IVC entered its decline, especially after the Cemetary H culture or late Harappan period. It would be wrong of them to claim religious connection to the civilization as the language and religion is yet to be fully deciphered. However it exhibits evidence of proto-dravidian animism and nature worship, hence all those symbols wrongly mistaken as hindu gods.
These debates are even less relevant if you are interested in wider scientific history and the waves of migration from our original homelands- East Africa.
More than half of your country lies to the West of Indus rivers which was never included as India by Greek historians, only a small part of India lies within modern Pakistan just like FYROM has small part of Macedonia. You mean Balochistan was India. 
So, please stop faking the history with your jholachap expert knowledge. 
