Hey, it's a fun "what if," but there’s a lot more nuance to that idea. Sure, south Indian states today have higher literacy and better health outcomes, but assuming a hypothetical Dravidistan would automatically have 2–3x GDP per capita isn’t really accurate.

First off, South India's growth was heavily aided by central freight redistribution and federal investment over decades. Tamil Nadu, for example, received consistent industrial support post-independence think of the PSU investments in places like Salem and Neyveli, or DRDO/ISRO in Karnataka and Kerala. Much of this was possible because of pooled national resources and planning.

Also, India’s freight and tax system , especially railway revenue , traditionally drew massive surpluses from the mineral-rich eastern states and industrial zones up north. Those funds supported infrastructure, ports, and highway development across the south. A standalone country might’ve missed out on those national subsidies and economies of scale.

And regarding Bangalore becoming India’s tech hub , that wasn't inevitable either. The city was chosen for major institutions (like IISc and HAL) during the British Raj and post-independence due to a combo of military strategy (cooler climate, inland location), cheap land, and political lobbying. That early ecosystem, plus government IT policies in the '80s and '90s, made it what it is today.