…In 2019, two major studies were published which gave some of the strongest evidence yet to the theory.
…So while Proto-Indo-Europeans expanded out of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe in all directions, it was their later Northern European branch which mixed with native European farmers that then expanded back eastward and became the founders of Vedic civilisation.
…Written between 1,500-1,000 BC, the Rigveda is one of the foundational Hindu texts — one of the four Vedas, and the oldest Vedic Sanskrit text. It records the story of the Aryan incursion into India and their encounter with the local populations.
The Indo-Iranian peoples apparently referred to themselves as “Aryans”, meaning “noble” or “civilised”. An inscription on the tomb of Darius the Great uses the term “Ariya” to describe the Iranian people, apparently describing Darius as an “Aryan of Aryan descent.” In Avestan, the liturgical language of Zoroastrianism, “Airyanem Vaejah” is used to describe an ancient “Aryan expanse” which was the homeland of the Iranian people. Similarly, the Sanskrit term ārya, meaning noble, is used throughout the Rigveda to describe the conquerors who subdued the native Indians, who are referred to as Dasa/Dasyu.
I am a bit disappointed in this essay because it misses so much of what really happened in the ancient world, but it is worth reading due to the genetic information presented and its discussion of the Rigveda.
‘Aryan’ is the root source of the name Chinese use for themselves to this day — ‘huaren‘ (華人). It is also the source for the name of the earliest Chinese dynasty, the Xia Dynasty (夏朝). This shows that the expanse of ancient Aryan peoples included also Tocharians in Northeast Asia, where they had a very significant influence on the development of Chinese, Korean, Mongolian and Japanese civilizations.
Aryan peoples are largely synonymous with Scythians, who ruled Central Asia for many centuries, dating back to their invention of the chariot, circa 2,000 BCE, which is why horses were so important in their spread and dominance. It is entirely ridiculous to feel proud today that you have Aryan ancestry (many people do) or that Indian civilization owes nothing to the Aryans.
Incidentally, the Buddha himself was Aryan or Scythian. When he is called Shakyamuni, the name literally means ‘sage of the Scythians’. The Buddha is often referred to as an Aryan in traditional Buddhist texts. The only physical description we have of Shakyamuni Buddha says his eyes were blue. It is ridiculous to be either proud of ancestry from Aryans or ashamed of not being Aryan or having been conquered by them. All peoples everywhere have been conquered and enslaved, and conquered and enslaved others.
Read the works of Christopher Beckwith for a much more detailed and expansive take on this subject. For Buddhists, I highly recommend his book, Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Beckwith claims Aryan dominance and deep influence in all of the cultures bordering Central Asia was not particularly violent but rather resulted from Aryan/ Scythian males settling in a region and mating with the local women. This led to the formation of many creole languages with prominent Indo-European words and features. ABN
American Buddhist Net 
There was no Aryan “invasion” of India. This has been debunked. The English had to make up history to account for the fact that Sanskrit is the prototype language of the Indo-European languages. They couldn’t have the language of a brown skinned people be the basis of their own language, so they came up with the Aryan invasion theory. They insisted that the basis of European culture MUST BE WHITE PEOPLE! But there is no evidence of Central Asians invading India 5000 or 6000 years ago. What actually happened was that Indians migrated OUT of India. There is evidence of Vedic culture, influence, and language all across Europe. That influence came FROM India, not the other way around.
The Aryan Invasion Myth: How 21st Century Science Debunks 19th Century Indology
Please read Beckwith’s The Scythian Empire: Central Eurasia and the Birth of the Classical Age from Persia to China. It’s a good read which adds the history of Central Asia to the histories of the world. I will be interested in what you have to say about it. Beckwith would agree with you that there was no Aryan ‘invasion’ of India but not that there was no Aryan influence on India.
Chavda’s point is that Aryan’s WERE Indians originally! Aryan culture came out of Vedic culture.
“Indo-Aryan people and their languages originated in the Bharatiya subcontinent and that the Indus valley civilization (Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization) was the Vedic civilization.
The Indo-Aryan people and languages originated in the Bharatiya subcontinent.
The Vedic civilization and the Indus valley civilization (Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization) are one and the same.
North Bharatiyas and South Bharatiyas are genetically and culturally alike. The Aryan-Dravidian divide is a myth; it has no basis in fact.
Bharatiya civilization is a continuous, unbroken tradition that dates back to the very beginning of the Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization, at least 9,500 years before present. This makes Bharat not only the world’s oldest civilization, older than Mesopotamia and Egypt, but also the world’s oldest continuously existing civilization. This makes Bharat the true Cradle of Civilization.”
I suspect that Vedic culture is tens of thousands of years old, but we will have to wait for archaeological evidence to confirm that. For now, we have evidence that it’s at least 9500 years old.
Beckwith’s error is that he’s assuming the Central Asian people had not come from the Vedic culture to begin with. He’s assuming their culture was different from Vedic culture. The question of whether there was Aryan “influence” on India is moot. The Aryans WERE Indians!
You may be right about all of this. Beckwith’s line of reasoning is strictly based on what can be solidly attested. If there is no solid attestation, he does not include it in his analyses and descriptions.
I do believe there is plenty of room for speculation. History is not much different from politics in this respect. I like Beckwith’s approach because it does provide a bottom-line of attestation upon which historical speculation can rely.
As a Buddhist, I see much more in Buddhism than what can be fully attested but religious practice is not the same as history. Even if it could be proved the Buddha never existed, the ideas would still be good and the practices, many of which have evolved, would still work.