What wonderful analysis - we should all go back to living in mud and thatch houses, and forsake the "necessities" (electricity, running water, etc) we have come to depend upon.
Wait! While poverty in South Asia ensures that quite a few of its residents already live that life, even India has a "growing Middle Class of almost three hundred million" mired in the modern "way of life". So your argument essentially discredited modern India from any "right" to any history on the geographic piece of land that it is comprised of currently.
Did the "Indian ancients" use mobile phones and drive Ambassadors and Marutis, and go see skimpily clad women dancing on the silver screen? Pakistan was part of a "sub-continent".
A nation called India never existed until independence in 1947 - it was flawed nomenclature used by a colonizing power.
Alexander was not from greece proper, he was from macedonia - but all his systems for greek. Do you start calling him something else other than a greek emperor, who did many great things?
A civilizations boundaries expand and contract and sometimes might even shift from the past centre of gravity. Read the history of roman civilization to read about its various contractions, expansions from time to time. This example so that you have a neutral perspective. I differentiate between the civilizational aspect, political aspect and religious aspect. this is not to say that one does not have an affect on the other. They all have interminglings with each other.
But can yet be easily differentiated. Some of the aspects of civilization are some sort of continuity and vaguely some sort of past as torch for future, some shared values and knowledge. For example, ayurveda -Indian, unani -persian. its ofcourse another matter that both India and pakistan have moved on to halopati
Akbar/Ashoka/ harsha/vikramaditya NEVER ruled the entire India. Differentiate a political entity from an civilizational entity (Ashoka came the closest). Yes, India as a political entity, got its form in 1947, but as a civilizational entity it is way back. Understand nepal and srilanka still come under this civilizational (not political, not religious) entity. The whole of SE asia
was under the indian civilization at that time(name of indonesian airlines), but today they arent.
whereas Pakistan is a break from the civilizational aspect. I am not talking about political, The civilizational break
started with the advent of Qasim (Note I am not saying that the break happened instantly as the Pakistani textbooks proclaim). Afghanistan slid out around 4-5 centuries back. Pakistan got a huge break in 1947 due to political aspect. yes, may be not 100% civilizational aspect but around 99% which for me is good enough from that aspect to be treated as a new entity.
The use of mobile phones and all modernisation all today are technological aspects, which again has its effects. I think you have heard of americanization/consumerism term, what do you think that stuff about?
Read the kingdoms of sodasa mahajanapadas (16 great kingdoms), the names and locations of kingdoms mentioned in ramayana and mahabharata to get a perspective.
In the modern age, look at the rajputs, their claims of being suryavamshis(the clan from the sun) and such, each of them had a very small political kingdom, should I/you start calling each of the district sized political entities as different civilizations? Greece was divided in its hey days into city states each max the size of an average sized town, are they different civilizations? Answer this and you will immediately understand the difference between a political entity and a civilizational entity.
Oh! If I am not wrong, Kandahar is the modern gandhara which is part of afghanistan, which according to the logic being propounded, is now an afghan civilization.
Even the Gauls would not be an ancient French civilization by this masterly logic of yours!! 
