So far, so good: the Sangh is right about the substantial increase in the Muslim percentage of the Indian population. A realistic projection into the… - Koenraad Elst

I would prefer to debate this with the ones whose framework you (and perhaps your Indian Shaiva informers) have naively borrowed and interiorized, and for whom you are only a useful idiot.

The notion that the Aryans had come from outside was unknown to the indigenous oral and scriptural traditions, and no traces of any foreign memories have been found in spite of a determined search. At the textual level too, the much-sought-for evidence of any Aryan invasion (or “infiltration”, or “immigration”) remains unfindable.

The theory of which we are about to discuss the linguistic evidence, is widely known as the ‘Aryan invasion theory’ (AIT). I will retain this term even though some scholars object to it, preferring the term ‘immigration’ to ‘invasion’. They argue that the latter term represents a long-abandoned theory of Aryan warrior bands attacking and subjugating the peaceful Indus civilization..... What makes an immigration into an invasion is not the means used but the end achieved: after an invasion, the former outsiders are not merely in, as in an immigration, but they are also in charge. If the newcomers end up imposing their (cultural, religious, linguistic) identity rather than adopting the native identity, the result is the same as it would have been in the case of a military conquest, viz. that outsiders have made the country their own, and that natives who remain true to their identity (such as Native Americans in the US) become strangers or second-class citizens in their own country.” ....It is entirely reasonable to call this development an ‘invasion’ and to speak of the prevalent paradigm as the ‘Aryan invasion theory’.”