Is Indus Language Malayalam?

Iravatham Mahadevan

Revisiting the Roots: Could the Indus Language Be Proto-Malayalam?

Malayalam, the principal language of Kerala at the southern tip of India, is a member of the Dravidian language family, which includes Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Tulu, and Brahui (spoken in present-day Pakistan). For decades, the antiquity of Malayalam was contested. However, its designation as a classical language has firmly established its historical depth—at least 1,500 years old—challenging the long-standing belief that Malayalam is merely a younger dialect of Tamil, shaped by Sanskrit influence only around 500 years ago.

This recognition stems from Malayalam’s unique linguistic evolution and deep historical roots. Unlike Tamil, which comprises 30 letters (12 vowels and 18 consonants) known as Dramida Sanghathaksharam, Malayalam expanded its script to accommodate Sanskrit loanwords—a development formalized by Ezhuthachan in the 16th century. Even earlier, a literary blend known as Manipravalam emerged, combining Sanskrit with a distinct local language. Linguists argue that this local tongue was not the Tamil spoken east of the Sahyadris, but an older variant known as Malanadu Tamil—a form of Kodum Tamil, or Old Tamil.

Scholars such as Puthussery Ramachandran, who served on the committee that evaluated Malayalam’s classical status, suggest that Kodum Tamil was a proto-Tamil spoken prior to the Sangam era (300 BCE–300 CE). While Sangam literature refined Tamil into Chen Tamil for literary purposes, the western region of the Ghats—isolated by the mountains and the Arabian Sea—preserved and evolved the spoken form independently. This evolution gave rise to Malanadu Tamil, which eventually became the foundation of modern Malayalam.

Linguists assert that Malayalam retains many features of this ancient tongue, more so than modern Tamil. This theory, supported by scholars like Ulloor S. Parameswara Iyer, N.V. Ramaswamy, Godavarma, and K.M. George, echoes the early insights of Hermann Gundert, a 19th-century German missionary and linguist who made pioneering contributions to Malayalam studies.

If we accept that the Indus Valley Civilization spoke a proto-Dravidian language and that its people migrated southward following its decline, it is reasonable to assume that their language influenced the southern tongues. Given Malayalam’s preservation of proto-Tamil features and its relative insulation from external linguistic shifts, it may be more closely related to the Indus language than modern Tamil.

While Iravatham Mahadevan explored parallels between Tamil and the Indus script, this series takes a fresh approach—examining potential connections between Malayalam and the Indus language. Through script analysis and linguistic comparisons, I have identified several exclusive parallels that reinforce this hypothesis.

Tholkappiyam, the foundational Sangam text, refers to “adi nintra ‘a’ karam”—the original form of Tamil words ending in -a, such as mazha, puzha, and thala. These later evolved into poetic forms ending in -ai (e.g., mazhai), but Malayalam retains the original forms.

In contrast to modern Tamil, which employs gender-specific verb conjugations (e.g., avan vandan, aval vandal, avar vandar), ancient Tamil did not mark verbs for gender—a feature that Malayalam continues to preserve. For example, Malayalam uses forms like avan vannu, aval vannu, avar vannu, where the verb remains unchanged regardless of the subject’s gender.

Other linguistic markers include:

• The absence of suffixes like -nthu in Malayalam, which appear in later Tamil. Purananootti pazhamai suggests this suffix is a later development.
• Frequent use of the suffix -an in both old Tamil and Malayalam (e.g., varuvan, pokuvan).
• Words like pazhakiya, azhakiya in Malayalam mirror old Tamil, while modern Tamil uses pazhakina, azhakina.
• Shared vocabulary such as mathi (enough), aliyan (brother-in-law), kalari (school), pizha (fine), and angadi (market)—absent in modern Tamil but present in both old Tamil and Malayalam.

These linguistic continuities suggest that Malayalam is not a younger sibling of Tamil, but perhaps an elder sister—preserving the essence of proto-Dravidian speech. If it is logical to seek Tamil roots in the Indus language, it is equally, if not more, logical to explore Malayalam’s connections. In the pages that follow, I present compelling evidence and linguistic parallels that support this fascinating possibility.

Exploring Linguistic Parallels Between Malayalam and the Indus Language

Studying Linguistic Parallels: A Methodological Necessity

In the absence of bilingual inscriptions like the Rosetta Stone, deciphering the Indus script remains one of the most challenging tasks in historical linguistics. Scholars must rely on comparative methods—identifying linguistic parallels between known languages and the symbols found in Indus inscriptions. This approach is particularly vital when dealing with undeciphered scripts, as it allows researchers to hypothesize phonetic or semantic values based on recurring patterns, cultural context, and continuity in vocabulary. In the case of Malayalam, which retains many features of proto-Dravidian speech, such comparative analysis becomes a powerful tool to explore potential connections with the Indus language.

The brevity of Indus inscriptions—typically 4 to 5 symbols long—complicates decipherment. However, by examining morphological patterns, suffix usage, and semantic clusters in Malayalam and Old Tamil, researchers can identify linguistic residues that may trace back to the Indus Valley. This method gains further credibility when supported by archaeological continuity, such as shared cultural motifs, trade practices, and symbolic representations. Thus, the study of linguistic parallels is not merely speculative—it is a structured, evidence-based approach that compensates for the lack of direct translation aids.

The Indus Script: Structure, Symbols, and Challenges

The Indus script, also known as the Harappan script, comprises approximately 400 to 425 unique signs, with some estimates going as high as 676 symbols. These symbols appear on over 5,000 inscribed objects, including seals, pottery, copper plates, and tools. Most inscriptions are short—rarely exceeding 20 characters—and are typically found on square stamp seals made of steatite. The writing direction on the seal carvings themselves is generally right-to-left, a conclusion drawn from the observation that symbols often appear compressed toward the left edge of the carved surface, suggesting that scribes began on the right and misjudged the available space. In rare cases, inscriptions show boustrophedon writing (alternating direction line by line), but this is not the norm.

However, what we typically see and interpret are seal impressions—the marks left when the seal is pressed into clay or other soft materials. These impressions are mirror images of the carvings. Therefore, while the seal was carved right-to-left, the final impression appears left-to-right, which is how ancient users would have visually read the script on documents or goods.

Despite extensive research, the script remains undeciphered due to the absence of bilingual texts and the unknown language it represents. Scholars have proposed various theories: Sanskrit-based interpretations by S.R. Rao and others, and Dravidian-based hypotheses by Iravatham Mahadevan and Asko Parpola. Parpola’s work, in particular, suggests that the script reflects a proto-Dravidian language, possibly related to Tamil or its older variants. The seals often depict animals like bulls, elephants, and the mythical “unicorn,” alongside inscriptions, hinting at symbolic or administrative functions.

The Indus Valley Civilization: Timeline and Technological Milieu

The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) flourished between 3300 BCE and 1300 BCE, with its Mature Harappan phase spanning 2600–1900 BCE. It evolved from earlier Neolithic settlements like Mehrgarh and transitioned through the Early Harappan (3300–2600 BCE) and Late Harappan (1900–1300 BCE) phases. The civilization is often classified as Chalcolithic, relying primarily on copper tools, with limited use of bronze due to the scarcity of tin in the region.

The IVC was remarkable for its urban planning, standardized weights and measures, and advanced drainage systems. Cities like Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, Dholavira, and Lothal featured grid layouts, granaries, and water reservoirs. Trade links extended to Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf, evidenced by Indus seals found in those regions. The civilization’s technological sophistication and cultural coherence make it one of the most advanced societies of its time.

Geographic Spread and the Saraswati Connection

The Indus-Saraswati Civilization stretched across nearly 1.6 million square kilometers, encompassing parts of Pakistan, northwest India, and northeast Afghanistan, with major sites like Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, Rakhigarhi, Dholavira, and Ganweriwala. While originally named after the Indus River, growing evidence of settlements along the Ghaggar-Hakra—identified by many with the Vedic Saraswati—led scholars to adopt the term Indus-Saraswati Civilization. This broader view highlights that the culture was not confined to the Indus basin but extended deep into the subcontinent, with sites such as Kalibangan and Lothal in India.

Michel Danino, in The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati, explains how tectonic shifts altered river systems: the Yamuna, once a tributary of the Saraswati, diverted eastward to join the Ganges, while the Sutlej turned westward to feed the Indus. Deprived of its glacier-fed waters, the Saraswati gradually dried up, leaving settlements without sustenance. As Danino notes, the hymns of the Rig Veda praise Saraswati more than any other river, yet “the evident cause of this depopulation of the country is the absolute absence of water.” This ecological collapse forced populations to abandon their cities and migrate eastward toward the Ganges basin, setting the stage for cultural transitions that later shaped Vedic society.

Social Structure and Theories of Decline

The Indus Valley Civilization likely operated through a decentralized social structure, with no clear evidence of monarchies or centralized rule. At the same time, some scholars suggest the presence of influential priestly elites or ‘priest-rulers,’ indicating that religious authority may have played a significant role in governance. Urban centers were organized, but lacked palatial buildings or temples, suggesting a community-based governance model. Society may have been stratified into traders, artisans, and religious elites, but the absence of warfare artifacts points to a relatively peaceful existence.

The civilization’s decline around 1900 BCE was gradual, not catastrophic. Theories include climate change, river course shifts, and declining monsoon intensity, which led to agricultural collapse and urban abandonment. The drying of the Saraswati River and migration eastward to the Ganges basin are well-supported hypotheses. While the Aryan Invasion Theory once dominated discourse, modern scholarship favors gradual migration and cultural assimilation over violent displacement.

Cultural Transition and Southern Expansion

Following the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization, many Harappan communities are believed to have migrated eastward and southward, gradually integrating into new regions. It is widely proposed—and supported by scholars like Iravatham Mahadevan—that the Indus civilization was the cradle of Dravidian civilization. This view positions the Indus language as proto-Dravidian, with its linguistic and cultural legacy continuing in southern India, particularly through languages like Tamil and Malayalam. As these communities moved south, they may have encountered indigenous proto-Dravidian groups such as the Nagas, known for their snake worship, leading to cultural exchanges that shaped the religious and linguistic landscape of peninsular India.

While Vedic literature contains references such as Indra destroying the 'puras' (forts), which some have interpreted as symbolic of conflict or conquest, modern archaeological evidence does not support the theory of large-scale annihilation. Instead, the transition from the Indus Valley Civilization to subsequent cultures appears to have been gradual and peaceful, with Harappan descendants assimilating into emerging Iron Age societies. This continuity laid the foundation for later urban developments and linguistic evolution across the subcontinent, contributing to the spread of Dravidian languages and cultural practices.

Iravatham Mahadevan: Pioneer of Dravidian Epigraphy

Iravatham Mahadevan (1930–2018) was one of India’s foremost epigraphists and a leading authority on the Indus script and Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions. A civil servant by profession, he devoted over four decades to the study of ancient scripts after his voluntary retirement. His landmark work, The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance and Tables (1977), remains a foundational resource for researchers. Mahadevan was among the earliest scholars to propose that the Indus script represents a proto-Dravidian language, and he applied statistical, linguistic, and structural analysis to support this hypothesis. His methodology emphasized cautious interpretation, relying on parallels between symbols and Dravidian vocabulary, and he often used ideograms and rebus techniques to decode meanings.

Mahadevan’s work laid the groundwork for the Dravidian school of thought in Indus script studies, influencing scholars like Asko Parpola and shaping modern understanding of South Asian linguistic history. His belief that the Indus Valley Civilization was Dravidian in origin is now widely accepted among Dravidian linguists. In this series, I follow the path that Iravatham Mahadevan helped clear—exploring the possibility that Malayalam, with its preserved proto-Dravidian features, may hold deeper connections to the Indus language than any other Dravidian language, and more than previously considered. His legacy continues to inspire new directions in decipherment and linguistic archaeology.

While Iravatham Mahadevan’s pioneering work focused on identifying parallels between the Indus script and Tamil, my interest lies in Malayalam. Many of the connections Mahadevan highlighted for Tamil apply equally well to Malayalam, but I aim to explore additional possibilities that may have been overlooked. Given Malayalam’s close relationship to Proto‑Tamil, it could serve as an especially strong candidate for examining linguistic continuities with the Indus script. I write this with deep respect for the path Mahadevan paved, and my work seeks to build upon and extend the foundations he established.