I have seen many people claiming Indus Valley civilization as Tamil Civilization who were later drifted to South by the so called marauding Aryans.
There has been no change in language demographics in India for several thousand years.
The Aryan languages were spoken upto North Maharashtra since the early Rigvedic time and Puranas testify to that.
Similarly the Dravidian languages have been spoken in their current regions since thousands of years.
There is neither any recorded history nor tradition of any movement or displacement of people before the colonialist historians pulled out this AIT from thin air.
They even go to the extent of calling Dravidians as immigrants to the land before Aryans (and Australoid people before them as well) though that part is not played up to the same extent.
I think of both Dravidian and Aryan languages and cultures as native to our Dharmic land and to be celebrated on their own merit. They need not be antagonistic to each other just because of the imaginary AIT and its imaginary implications (created and played up for political reasons).
The great Indian archaeologist S R Rao (who unearthed Dwarka earlier) has deciphered the IVC script (something accepted by many notable Academicians and universities) and he has mentioned its language to be an Aryan one.
IVC was an Aryan civilization.
stop talking with your own hand !!
This person is some sort of Arain (Arab wannabe). For some reason this remote wannabe Arab is obsessed with India.
Some other Arains are Zia ul haq and this Riaz haq and they were also obsessed with India even though we don't care for these wannabe Arabs.
Lately lot of Arain gils have been coming to India (like Veena malik) to earn their rozi-roti. Just let them earn their living.
The chart does say proto dravidian is not Tamil, otherwise it would be caled Tamil & not proto-Dravidian. According to your logic, Tulu came about in the 16th century? Do you see any language connections? Please don't dismiss scholarly work with this kind of logic. People can trace back words to their origins, the usually simply don't appear out of thin air. It is inconceivable that "Tamil" remained unchanged while other languages were simply changing wholesale around it. Do yoiu see any logic to that assertion? Language chages simply don't happen that way, it is usually a slow, long process. Tamil & Kannada did share a common ancestry & together with Tulu, an earlier form & with Telugu & the other members of that branch, an even earlier form. To argue, as you are doing, that Tamil remained untouched and it was all other languages going berserk & changing for no apparent reason is to be illogical & even more importantly, you are being uncharitable to Tamil, a language whose cause you insist that you are espousing.(By your logic, other languages seem to insist on rejecting Tamil. Otherwise why would they change from an "established" language?)
