The problem with the "Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India" is not that an invasion by Aryans, a linguistic group, ocurred or not - that's a strawman argument. The question is, did the Aryan speaking people come from outside India or not? If, not they must be indigenous to the Asian Subcontinent. If they came from outside India, where and when did they come to India and why?
Most reasonable people accept the timelines and chronologies of both Indian and western scholarship based on the historical evidence, not on any Indian traditions. For example, all the evidence supports the conclusion that the Vedas were composed after the invention of the spoked wheel and the use of the horse as a conveyance - there is no evidence for the use of either before 1700 B.C. in India. According to Indian scholarship, based on historical evidence, the Aryan speakers entered into India around 1700 B.C., just as the Indus Civilization was declining. The evidence is linguistic, archaeological, and textual. Historian agree that there is no mention of the Indus Valley Civilization in the Vedas, therefore, the Vedas must have been composed AFTER 1700 B.C. While there is no mention of the Indus Valley Civilization, the Rig Veda mentions the use of iron, which was not smelted in India until after 1500 B.C. In contrast, according to Indian tradition, the Aryans were a race of people who spoke an eternal language called Sanskrit over a million years ago on Mt. Meru, before homo sapiens sapiens came out of Africa, before the dawn of civilization, before the invention of the wheel, before writing and the invention of agriculture. Read more: 'The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India' http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/indians.htm
