Being a Maharashtrian I'd like to inject some neutral thoughts on this debate..
1. South Indian culture exhibits more "hinduness" than the north on account of the relatively less disruptions caused by the islamic invasions. It has a richer tradition of scholarship, education, history of empowerment for the downtrodden sections of the society..all these factors have contributed towards the rapid development of South vis a vis north india.
2. South also exhibits narrow regional mindset and a "patriotic" deficit as compared to the rest of India. South has had virtually no contribution towards India's freedom struggle, when Gandhi was spearheading "Quit India" movement in 1940s, the southern prophet Periyar was advocating a separate nation of South India. Periyar was the only hindu besides the god-foresaken communists to actively support M A Jinnah's idea of division of BharatMa to creat Pakistan.
3. Historically speaking Gujarat,Punjab, Maharashtra and Bengal have been the foundations of pan indian nationalism, nothwithstanding their liguistic/cultural differences.I'd rather go with the underdeveloped but Nationalist North than the more developed but opportunistic south.
