Dravidianist Myths Vs Indian History: A Case Of Internalised Colonialism

You weekend read is here!

Dear Reader,

This year marks a century since the discovery of Mohenjo-daro in 1924.

The Dravidianist movement’s celebration of British archaeologist John Marshall for the discovery of Harappan civilisation over Indian archaeologists like Rakhal Das Banerji and Vedam Pattabhirama Shastri reflects internalised colonialism rather than genuine pride in Indian history.

The more problematic aspect is that Dravidianist politicians and scholars have used this to support their narrative that the Sindhu-Saraswati Civilisation (SSC) had Dravidian roots and was destroyed by incoming Aryans.

They claim that Marshall highlighted the Dravidian origins that would have otherwise been suppressed by Brahminical dominance.

But many of these Dravidianist claims about the SSC are not supported by evidence.

For instance, the claim that the IVC was exclusively Dravidian is more a myth than fact. It ignores the intertwined nature of Sanskrit and Dravidian languages in Indian history.

Recent studies also suggest Harappan society wasn’t linguistically or ethnically homogenous — it was diverse, much like modern India. This challenges the Dravidianist claims of Harappan exclusivity.

Read the cover story of our latest weekend edition to understand why debunking these historical distortions matters

If you're a subscriber, you already have full access to this issue and all of Swarajya Digital. Just use your email ID to login and read them uninterrupted.

This also gives you access to not just these weekend editions, but also articles, monthly magazines, quizzes, podcasts, and more.

Enjoy the weekend,

Anmol N Jain