If I am a Dravidian nationalist, then what are you, Aryan nationalist. Learn to speak about the merits of the arguments put forth, and stop this name calling. Except for Satvahanas, rest of the kingdoms came much much later than Mauryas. Your logic that Maurya gave birth to southern kingdoms is illogical, seriously! Didn't the Cholas, Pandyas, Cheras exists before and during the time of Mauryas? I again say that Ashoka's reign is overrated. When the Cholas and Chalukyas fought each other, the empires were massive and almost equally matched. Whereas, Ashoka's empire size was 10x that of Kalinga and Ashoka huffed and puffed to win over Kalinga. If Kalinga was strong militarily, then either the Maurya empire was weaker than what's portrayed or Ashoka was a bad militarist. Most of the Southern Kingdoms (especially in the Tamil lands) were focused on the lucrative trade rather than conquering the barren North. They would rather focus on South East Asia / China / Rome / Caliphates to gain wealth than worry about the Northern Kingdoms. The biggest trade network was along the coast of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, not much from the rest of India. You'd know this if you read a little about India's history.you seems like dravidian nationalist, what southern kingdoms are you even talking about? the ones mentioned by ashoka in the first place? or the ones conquered by the mauryas, wasn't andhra, karnataka under mauryas who gave birth to ninety percent southern kingdoms in the first place including satavahanas, chalukyas, vijayanagar. pallavas etc? kalingas did have a very strong military and they operated four gigantic forts, the remains of which can still be seen today, and they had a really big trade network in SEA.