I believe the point made here is really the one I have the most difficulty understanding, and have attempted to argue against, in an attempt to understand the reasoning behind it ...
As I argued in response to KS, I do not see the 'modern Political Nation State' as either supporting or negating the argument of 'civilizational continuity' - whether secular or theocratic, the 'modern Political Nation State' provides a constitutional framework of laws preventing the nation from sliding into 'lawless chaos' - KS himself argued that there was a distinction between the 'modern Nation State' and 'culture', with the latter being more indicative of 'civilizational continuity'.
So, returning to your point quoted above, what part of modern Pakistani culture somehow represents a 'tectonic civilizational shift', outside of religion?
I am saying much the same then as which was argued by KS.
We need to separate the political nation state of the present from what we mean by the dominant civilization and its continuity.
As I just responded to Developer, we have it. You are on your way to losing it.
Some indicators of civilizational shift?
Besides the fact that Pakistan needed to exist in the first place????????
Intolerance to other faiths. That is not Indian. Never has been. Everything else pales in comparison but I will continue.
Religious fanaticism, fundamentalism, widespread anarchy, violence, bloodshed, killing in the name of religion. That is not Indian.
Your faith and your holy script. Not Indian.
Circumcision - male or female. Most definitely not Indian.
Religious indoctrination in the form of the predominant education at the level of the masses (madrassas). Not Indian.
The burqa and your treatment of and views towards women (property, inheritance, marriage, working, etc.). That is not Indian.
Celebrating foreign invaders and associating strongly (historically, spiritually, culturally, militarily, socially) with alien people, be they Arab or Iranic or Turkic. That is not Indian.
Proudly proclaiming that you ruled Indians for a thousand years, as slaves, etc. That is not Indian.
Waging wars against India and Indians and calling them your blood enemies. Definitely not Indian man. Even if you may believe that you are waging war against all Indians (Hindus, Sikhs, etc.) but the 170 odd million Indian muslims.
But, from a genetic perspective, if the majority of the IVC population had shifted East, the genes of the current inhabitants of the Indus Valley would be significantly distinct from those to the East, would they not?
Not East, but deep South. I believe Joe has already elaborated on this point in a previous post of his.
How do you tangibly define 'Hinduism as a way of life', for the multiple and disparate religious communities in India?
By Hindutva as our nationalistic cultural identity as a people as against Hinduism as a religion and a faith.
Even we Parsis who had no links to this land til 1300 years ago, have adopted the culture and the ethos of the land. In the way we think. In the way we engage with people of different faiths. In the way we speak. In the way we eat. In the way we dress. In the way we celebrate, what we celebrate. Even in some of our religious rituals.
Why should it be alien to people that have been on this soil and of the same genetic racial stock for millenia before that?