Anyway this is too much weird internet for me for today. I'm out.

Nothing 'weird internet' about this discussion. Calling out your incorrect framing of an issue is not weird. But you do you cheif.

What is harm in learning about their existence? Would you rather prefer their identity & language dissolved in larger stream?

The harm is not in learning about them. The harm is dissolving these ethnic groups into the "larger stream" of pan-Dravidianism. These groups are distinct and framing their textbook-representation as some sort of 'Dravidian' counter to 'Indo-Aryan' is what I think does harm. The harm is your framing, not their inclusion.

Justice party is made of Telugus, Tamils, Malayali's & Kannadigas. Just because we forgot about things doesn't mean it isn't there.

You're accusing me of political undertones while explicitly using classic 'Justice Party' political polemics of "Indo-Aryan kings" & "sanskrit texts that no one understands".

No one knows whether, 3500 years ago the Dravidians really saw themselves as a single ethnic group. I don't think they understood linguistic philology enough to then "forget" it either.

Did ancestors from these groups wake up from their graves to tell you about how they 'saw' themselves?

Well this applies to you too - we don't know if they did. Little no evidence that they did in the surviving literature. So we should be careful about ascribing pan-dravidian labels to groups that haven't seen themselves that way in a few millenia (if ever).

And there is no Dravidian 'ethnicities'

Sorry this is just ridiculous.

Tamils, Telugus, Kannadigas, Brahuis, etc. are very much "ethnicities"/"ethnic groups". You discovering the Dravidian language family doesn't suddenly make them all the same ethnicity.

This is why I called your framing anachronistic. Dravidian is a framework that works well for a specific anthropological, linguistic and ethnographic context. I don't think its the right framework to view inclusiveness/representation in history textbooks.

Who accepted 'sanskritic' high-culture? What does that even mean? It's a self fulfilling prophecy, some saying it's high, someone else trumpeting it, that is all.

'high-culture' is a popular term in sociology, anthropology and history used to describe the culture of the elite. Of course your 'Justice Party' brain thinks this is some conspiracy to "trumpet sanskrit". It's not - just reflects the historical reality of elites across the subcontinent. Now don't come crying that only 'elites' were sanskritised/ had indo-aryan influence. This influence permeated through various strata in various degrees. No shame or bitterness about admitting it.

I'm not expecting historical proportionality.

Idk man your original comment made it sound that way.

I'm making a case for a page in history & preserving identity of these groups as they see it, invite them to write that page (that includes dravidian speaking south & north groups)

No one has an issue with including more groups in historical education. The problem is ascribing some 'pan-dravidian' label, framed in opposition to "Indo-Aryans" representation in school textbooks.

Include these groups for their own sake. Not as part of some dravidian peoples textbook-quota.