Ramakrishnan Srinivasan, in his book "History of Ancient India", has provided many references which support two main theses. (a) The Aryans were not a barbaric tribe of invaders who entered India in 1,500 BCE and demolished the then-native Indian populations in battle. Rather, they were native to India and actually migrated westwards to Iran, the middle east and Europe; the migrations starting well before the Harappan period. (b) The northern and southern people of India were not separate ethnic groups altogether, although some researchers think that some of the illustrious groups ("devas") may have been natives of the Himalayan region or may even have had extra-terrestrial origins. Rather, this very ancient civilization actually had its roots in the South, in the now-submerged continent of Kumari Khanda (or, Lemuria), after which, the Southerners migrated towards the north and actively helped develop the Aryan culture, which is today incorrectly slandered as having been forcibly imposed on the Southerners by the northern (barbaric) Aryans via wars and subjugation.
Before listing out the salient pieces of literary evidence provided by Srinivasan, it may help to start by tracing out the "family tree" of the Aryans, based son the Vedic literature, as detailed by several scholars. Srinivasan has summarized the findings of more than a few of these scholars and the summaries seem to agree on many important details, except for the dates. While some have suggested that the "Saptarshi era" started with the coronation of the lengendary patriarch Vaivaswat Manu around 8,500 BCE, others think that the date may be better placed at around 10,500 BCE or even 15,000 BCE. Similarly, while Tamil scholars agree on the idea that there were 3 main literary Sangams and that there are several references supporting the theory of the submergence of the Kumari continent in whatever ancient literature survives today (starting from the 3rd Sangam), the estimated dates of these Sangams vary widely across the scholars quoted. Some have suggested that the first literary Sangam started around 30,000 BCE, while others have suggested a date of around
10,500 BCE. Regarding other dates like the dates pertaining to the Ramayan and the Mahabharata, Srinivasan suggests that over time, a consensus seems to be evolving in scholars in these matters. While part of the reason could be computers (which make it easier to decipher dates from astronomical data), it seems other evidence based on genetic, linguistic and archaeological studies has also played a big role in this increasing consensus.
Coming back to the Aryan "family tree", dates apart, it seems that Vaivaswat Manu was the first great king of the Aryans, and according to a reference in the Puranas, Manu himself was a southerner (or, Dravidian, to put it crudely). Indian mythology, of course, mentions several eras, each having its own Manu (first man), but mainstream historians do not expect to find any evidence of a civilization from prior to the recent ice age. Therefore, it is natural to first focus on the current Manu, who, according to the historians, was the first known illustrious king of the Aryans. Going by one scholar's (Swami Sakhyananda's) account, Manu would have been coronated around 8,576 BCE, and Manu divided his kingdom into 10 or 11 parts - one for each of his children. His eldest heir was Ila, his daughter, who married a rishi named Buddha, and her dynasty was later known as the Soma-Aryans (or, Soma Kula, the lunar dynasty). Ila remained the matriarch and "real power" of this dynasty for very long, and this was one of the reasons why women enjoyed a relatively high status in Aryan society for quite some time. The eldest male heir was Ikshvaku (also a name for the Sun God), whose dynasty was later called the Surya Kula (or, solar dynasty). Both dynasties branched out into several sub-dynasties, and most of the powerful sections of Ancient Indian history seem to have been connected with one of these two dynasties. The great great grandson of Ila - Yayati - had two wives, Devayaani (daughter of the Asura guru Shukracharya) and Sharmishthaa. Devayani's sons were Yadu and Turvasu and Sharmishtha's sons were named Druhyu, Anu-Druhyu and Puru. The dynasties of these 5 sons flourished and their further sub-groups were very well-known in the Aryan world - as sub-dynasties of the lunar dynasty. These 5 powerful groups are often called "panchajana" in vedic literature and conflicts between these groups (within themselves as well as with others) is said to be an important reason for the decline of the vedic civilization several thousand years later.
The panchajanas were known variously as "Soma-Arya", "Siva-dvija", "Asura" and "Brahmakshatras". Famous Asura kings like Prahlad and Bali were Sivadvijas - therefore, clearly, many or most "Asuras" (demons in common parlance) from the vedic literature were none other than sub-groups of the panchajanas from the lunar dynasty. Many other known social groups of the time - Yavana, Kamboja, Saraswat, Saindhava, Haihaya, Pani and Sakas - were also branches of the panchajanas, formed as the panchajanas grew via intermarriage and sub-divisions. Some of these Aryans (panchajanas) travelled to the far east, while others took a western route, towards Iran and the middle east. The names of many places in the middle east are derived from their Sanskrit roots for the same reason. As the lunar sub-groups travelled far and wide, mixing with and adopting the new regions as their own, places and social grooups dominated by them came to be named after them.
Examples are - Sumeria (from Soma-Arya), Hittite (from Kshatriya), Scythia (from Kshitipa), Ionia (from Yavana) and Phrygia (from Bhrigu). The Bhrigus were one of the Brahmin teacher communities of the panchajanas, and would have naturally travelled with them.
Importantly, much before Vaivaswat Manu too, nomadic Aryans had left westwards towards Iran and the middle east. They were led by two reknowned rishis - Atharvan and Tvashtra. This migration has been mentioned in the Avestan literature too. It seems that although the group multiplied there, their culture declined, because of which, the panchajanas had to send a group from the Druhyu / Turvasa family to "aryanize" them again.
The story of the solar dynasty is equally well-known, but not as much for travel outside India. The Surya-Kula moved towards the Ganges plains and established a great empire with the capital being on the banks of the Sarayu river. The legendary Rama, son of Dasharatha, was the most illustrious king in this lineage, but as the Puranas bring out, there were several kings prior to Rama who were also exemplary and are remembered to this day via stories and legends. A few generations after Rama, the dynasty lost its power and re-emerged hundreds / thousands of years later as the rulers of a more modest kingdom in the foothills of the Himalayas - the Shakya Kula, into which was born Lord Gautam Buddha, the 9th incarnation of Lord Vishnu, going by the famous "Dashavatar" legend. As the solar dynasty lost its power, it was slowly assimilated into the lunar Aryan groups, who had themselves, of course, branched off into several sub-groups and clans by then.
Due to floods around Hastinapur, even the Kuru-Kula - part of the lunar dynasty which ruled northern India during the Mahabharata age - moved eastwards and established a capital in Kushambi. Scholars believe that the dynasty continued as rulers of the easters "Magadha" empire, and that Dhanananda - the wickked king who was deposed by Chandragpta Maurya - was the last great ruler of the Kuru dynasty. Yadavs and a few other sub-groups remained powerful in some areas and are known to have been a mighty force in some regions in medieval India too, but none of this can be compared with the force that the lunar branches were during the Mahabharata era.
A few other pieces of evidence are due here, to further strengthen the general case that the Aryans and Dravidians were probably part of the same larger family, albeit a very large family with a countless number of total branches.
1. Swami Vipulananda has mentioned in his book that the Ganges river was a man-made river - developed by the Chola king Alagunandan, and therefore got the name Alakananda. The famous ruler Sagar (a few generations after Yayati) excavated the river, and this Sagar of Manu's lineage is mentioned in the Tolkappiam too (the oldest surviving book from the Tamil Sangam literature).
2. There is a Chola pass in Sikkim too, because the Cholas of the South had once occupied the Himalayan region as well.
3. It is univerally agreed that Agasthya - a very famous vedic rishi - travelled to the South and "gave" the Tamil language as a gift to the southern people. Agastya's grammar - called Agattiam - is now lost, but is mentioned by the author of Tolkappiam (Tolkappiar) as a great reference and Agasthyar has been mentioned by Tolkappiar as his guru too. The 18 Yadava clans who travelled with Agastya are said to have been amongst the early settlers in those parts of the then Tamil kingdom (Kumari). So do ancient Sanskrit books like the Ramayana praise the high Tamil civilizaion and the Pandya kings who ruled over large parts of the area. This ties in well with several references in the Sangam literature to the Pandyas and to the high culture of the Tamil at one point.
4. Historians believe that around 10,000 BCE, the Sapta-Sindhu area was not as inhabitable as the Southern parts of India. This geographical fact ties in well with the general drift of the story, which seems to have support not only from these sources, but also from recent genetic and archaeological studies.
Clearly, regardless of which language is older, the northern and southern people were in close contact since very ancient times, and did not meet when the Aryans came to invade the south with barbaric aspirations. Most probably, they were people from the same larger culture, which included both northerners and southerners within its larger fold.
Sadanand Tutakne
