Why does it have to be "organized"?
Cambridge dictionary definition
"An occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country."
Simple Wikipedia definition:
"An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity."
Both definitions imply cohesive (ie. organized) geopolitical entities.
In England it was a population that clearly used violence in the process of settling their new territories, this much is indisputable. There is no need to demand it being "organized".
See above. Just like in the case of Bronze Age India, post-Roman Britain wasn't only seeing active attempts by groups of Saxons to invade and conquer. Local warlords invited them as mercenaries, they fought against and for one another and married into local power structures. Later on once much of the Wash had been Saxonified more family groups came. Just because violence was used doesn't meen it was used exclusively on the prior inhabitants. Ergo there is a demand for organised incursions if you want to call it an invasion.
[/QUOTE]
This is not the case, genetics have already proven than in India there was a big enough demographic component to the indo-europenization, This is even more so depending on how you interpret the genetic makeup of the original newcomers to have been(already mixed with Central Asia or "pure" Yamnaya/Andronovo-like people? probably the earlier, making the demographic impact even bigger), but even the most conservative estimation would give an impact of more than 20% outside ancestry for most of the Indus and Ganges basin and more so for the northern Indus valley.
How does this disprove my statement?
Yeah and the paleogenetic papers I've read (Narasimhan et. al., 2019) and (Lazaridis et. al., 2016) attribute that to consist flows of migrating peoples. Thing is Central Asian and Indo-European DNA groups were migrating in when the IVC was flourishing, they did so after its collapse, with most of the initial wave of migrants largely men. Now I'm not saying they didn't use violence once they reached India. But as archaeology and literary analysis of the Rig Veda suggests this was directed upon one and other just as much as any local polities. Both papers suggest that once the north-west had largely restructured once more a final wave of multiple migrations happened.
You are arguing with 19th century dead scholars, if we strip your caricature of any further meaning and ideologies, we can actually say that Aryan invasion was a process where Indo-Aryan speakers, which if we had to mention were probably lighter than the locals, ended up dominating and assimilating the local populations and the later caste system preserves to this day some differences in the amount of original Aryan ancestry even if ultimately mixing occurred at all levels.
There is essentially nothing false about this, the problem is trying to argue against ideas and theories that go far beyond this simple statement by attacking this unrelated concept.
People making wrong claims about the nature of the caste system, the chronology of the decline of IVC and the coming of the Indo-Aryan speakers etc. doesn't mean that we can pretend that this particular anecdote of human history is one free of violence or that it lays outside what we can call "invasion".
Dude I'm not arguing with 19th century dead scholars, and its kinda stupid to caricaturize me as doing such. I'm not going to Mortimer Wheeler's grave, digging it up and starting to violently argue with him, neither Max Muller. I'm not saying its without violence either just that it happened during a period on such a mass scale that this violence was directed in all directions, not just immigrant versus local. What you're looking for is something like the Magyar invasions, where a united and concentrated Magyar coalition conquered the Carpathian basin under Arpad. There is simply no evidence to suggest so in India of such organization.
What I'm trying to do is reconcile people with their history because terms like Aryan invasions bring up words like "white domination", "Aryan degredation", "weaker Aborgines" and "racial dilution", all Nazi bullshit that still gets associated with an invasion.
In the entire history of humanity we see so much violence in just about every facet of society, but in this event where an outside groups enters, dominates and ends up becoming a big demographic component of the newly mixed population, there was no violence or coercion? Did the locals somehow elect or voluntary choose the newcomers into power?
Look never once did I suggest a lack of violence but you insist I did. And as for voluntary, well the intermarriage and diffusion top down that linguistic changes from Old-Indo-Aryan to Vedic Sanskrit suggest that yes, the local post-IVC states might have decided to ally with these bands via marital alliances voluntarily to one up the other. I'll just let one of the prime Indologists of the modern era explain why invasion isn't the correct term:
"The theory of an immigration of IA speaking Arya ("Aryan invasion") is simply seen as a means of British policy to justify their own intrusion into India and their subsequent colonial rule: in both cases, a "white race" was seen as subduing the local darker colored population. " - Michael Witzel
Why does prior internal decline of IVC disprove the idea of an invasion? Maybe you are using a very specific meaning of invasion, but honestly to me if there is violence and if there is a political takeover, it's simply an invasion. The fact you also think the Indo-Aryan settlers were mostly male is telling, doesn't it make them more likely to have been armed bands confronting established, albeit declining/collapsed, native societies instead of general migratory groups(like Slavs were north of the Danube) who simply encountered depopulated land?
As the dictionary definitions I have posted above I think you might be the one with a very specific meaning of invasion. By that standard the Civil Rights movements can be classified as an 'invasion'. Political violence in Montgomery, Alabama and administration changes tune to support it. Boom. Invasion.
And again, yes there was violence. Them being armed bands gradually moving further into thise new subcontinent doesn't imply they intended on confronting whatever socities existed there priorly. And primarily male intends a ratio of 3:1. Nearly all pre-modern societies commenced mass migrations into the unknown in similar ratios.
And who says the Slavs were migrating through depopulated land north of the Danube? It was filled with Iranic pastoralists, Germanic sedentary groups and whatever category the Dacians fall into. But I'd say it was still a migration in the same way as they assimilated and diffused their culture onto these groups. Any violence cohesive enough to be deemed invasions only started when they came into contact with the ERE.