It has been an year since Vamsi posted a comment, could you please make time and try reflecting your thoughts on his argument?

Awaiting your reply eagerly.

Dravidian people were forced to migrate from north to south india. The khajua in fathepur , UP , where in ramlila , ravana is workshipped and there are 118 shiva shrines. moreover the people of this land are called DREDHOMAR .

Below point mentions Asiatic North Indians and Asiatic South Indians starts mixing more than 40000 years ago,well before any Aryan invasion or migration started according to british imperialists. It also states castes grow out of the culture well later these two races came into existence. SO Dravidians and aryans is a myth. How come dravidians who do not have a caste and ravana being a dravidian was a brahmin.

Read more: Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Aryan-Dravidian-divide-a-myth-Study/articleshow/5053274.cms#ixzz11q3uQ7eR

Second, as far as the Aryan Invasion Theory (AVT) goes, the canonical theory was that the Aryans came from central Asia and settled in India. This theory was proposed by the British to account for how advanced the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was. The canonical AVT assumed that the ruins of the IVC were in fact the ruins of an Aryan race because they could not fathom that a race indigenous to a colony could have had such high levels of advancement predating the colonists (in this case, the British) themselves! So in the canonical sense, the AVT has already been discredited.

Coming back to my claim about Aryan people vs. Dravidian people, I never claimed that the Aryan people were from outside the greater Indian peninsula. I only claimed that there existed two separate groups of people and they were in conflict (more on the nature of the conflict to follow). Why do I claim that? Well, if there is no such thing as Aryan people vs. Dravidian people, then how do you account for the ANI/ASI divide, or the regional celebration of the ascension of Mahabali (and other observations that I will omit in favor of brevity)? Interestingly, while all of India is regarded as being Hindu (at least historically), the ASI/ANI divide indicates that the people did not see each other as having a common group identity. So when you have different groups with different identities occupying the same geographical area, you will see conflict. This conflict may be cultural, social, or military. Coming back to the the story of Mahabali and Ramayan, it is quite possible that social/cultural domination of ANI over ASI people formed the basis of these myths. However, a hero, a villan, and a grand stand/battle makes for much more interesting tale (and a much better tool of propaganda) than an account of socio-cultural domination that was decades (if not centuries) in the making. So perhaps there never really was a military invasion, nor was there a bloody battle. It is all perhaps a myth, based on real events nevertheless.