Judging from this clarification, it seems that a position is being created that the Indus valley civilisation was the sole active player in the separation of Dravidian from non-Dravidian communities, and that we should shun any attempt to use the word Indic, as that might show unnecessary respect to the Indus valley lot, in comparison. But is this true, or an accurate reflection of historical events, or is it just blurred hindsight, or even some agenda?

Here's the relevant excerpt from the page on the Indus valley civilisation:

See also: Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit

The IVC has been tentatively identified with the toponym Meluhha known from Sumerian records. It has been compared in particular with the civilizations of Elam (also in the context of the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis) and with Minoan Crete (because of isolated cultural parallels such as the ubiquitous goddess worship and depictions of bull-leaping). [87] The mature (Harappan) phase of the IVC is contemporary to the Early to Middle Bronze Age in the Ancient Near East, in particular the Old Elamite period, Early Dynastic to Ur III Mesopotamia, Prepalatial Minoan Crete and Old Kingdom to First Intermediate Period Egypt.

After the discovery of the IVC in the 1920s, it was immediately associated with the indigenous Dasyu inimical to the Rigvedic tribes in numerous hymns of the Rigveda. Mortimer Wheeler interpreted the presence of many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-Daro as the victims of a warlike conquest, and famously stated that "Indra stands accused" of the destruction of the IVC. The association of the IVC with the city-dwelling Dasyus remains alluring because the assumed timeframe of the first Indo-Aryan migration into India corresponds neatly with the period of decline of the IVC seen in the archaeological record. The discovery of the advanced, urban IVC however changed the 19th century view of early Indo-Aryan migration as an "invasion" of an advanced culture at the expense of a "primitive" aboriginal population to a gradual acculturation of nomadic "barbarians" on an advanced urban civilization, comparable to the Germanic migrations after the Fall of Rome, or the Kassite invasion of Babylonia. This move away from simplistic "invasionist" scenarios parallels similar developments in thinking about language transfer and population movement in general, such as in the case of the migration of the proto-Greek speakers into Greece, or the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe.

It was often suggested that the bearers of the IVC corresponded to proto-Dravidians linguistically, the breakup of proto-Dravidian corresponding to the breakup of the Late Harappan culture. [88] Today, the Dravidian language family is concentrated mostly in southern India and northern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui language), which lends credence to the theory. Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people. However, in an interview with the Deccan Herald on August 12, 2012, Asko Parpola clarified his position by admitting that Sanskrit-speakers had contributed to the Indus Valley Civilization. [89] Proto-Munda (or Para-Munda) and a "lost phylum" (perhaps related or ancestral to the Nihali language) [90] have been proposed as other candidates.

The civilization is sometimes referred to as the Indus Ghaggar-Hakra civilization [5] or the Indus-Sarasvati civilization by Hindutva groups, which is based on theories of Indigenous Aryans and the Out of India migration of Indo-European speakers.
---------

It seems the jury is still out on this, and there is no value to adopting polarised viewpoints at this stage, just four months after the latest information about this issue, which is so ambivalent. Considering the history is of so many thousand years back, and that there is so little definitive data about this particular aspect of it, why should we get so didactic? Do we have a better (ie more inclusive) word at hand?

--
Vickram
Fool On The Hill
"The cameras were all around. We've got you taped; you're in the play. 
Here's your I.D. (Ideal for identifying one and all.) 
Invest your life in the memory bank; ours the interest and we thank you."
Jethro Tull: A Passion Play (1973)