OK. I've looked into this as best I can. And I'll preface this by saying Indian history is my weakest point, so I didn't really have an opinion on this going in.
First off, for a tribal people like the Iranians/Aryians there really isn't a dime's worth of difference between a "migration" and an "invasion". All of Eurasia was settled by this time, so when a tribe moves into a new area, the old inhabitants have to be pushed out somehow.
You could try to picture some kind of peaceful coexistance and absorption if you want, but that would certianly fly in the face of the historical record we have for these same Iranian peoples' arrival at the same time in the near east. They pretty much wiped out the Elamite poeple in Persia, and the Akkadians in Mesopotamia. They weren't using all those chariots for circuses.
So now let's follow your link, like you suggested. Any time I see an interesting book on Amazon I like to read the favorable reviews and the unfavorable ones. Often the unfavorable ones contain the most information. Here's the one for the book you linked. I won't quote it here because it is both too long, and to detail-filled to really cull parts of it.
Still, this is just one guy. So the next step is to hit the Wikipedia page for the author. This should give us a good idea of how accepted his theories are among historians.
Well, there we find out that this is one in a series of books by this same author that reinterpret history in a rather unusual (and Hindu-nationalist) manner.
Bryant (2001) commented that Frawley's work is more successful in the
popular arena, to which it is directed and where its impact "is by no
means insignificant", rather than in academic study and that
"(Frawley) is committed to channeling a symbolic spiritual paradigm
through a critical empirico rational one".
In a series of exchanges published in The Hindu, Michael Witzel
rejects Frawley's linking of Vedic literature with the Harappan
civilisation and a claimed lost city in the Gulf of Cambay, as
misreading Vedic texts, ignoring or misunderstanding other evidence
and motivated by antiquity frenzy. Witzel argues that Frawley's
proposed "ecological approach" and "innovative theories" of the
history of ancient India amount to propagating currently popular
Bruce Lincoln attributes autochthonous ideas such as Frawley's to
"parochial nationalism", terming them "exercises in scholarship ( =
myth + footnotes)", where archaeological data spanning several
millennia is selectively invoked, with no textual sources to control
the inquiry, in support of the theorists' desired narrative.
Basically what these critics are saying is that (according to them) it seems he decides what he wants the history to be, then goes out and looks for facts to back it up. It should go without saying that good science does things the other way around.
I note on this same page that there's actually a Wiki page for the Indigenous Aryans theory. Reading through there, it appears the theory itself isn't taken particularly serioiusly by the various historical and scientific communities it touches on. To give an example, one of the largest sections in there is titled "Pseudoscience and postmodernism".
Regardless, you may buy his argument, and he may even turn out to be right. However, getting back to your question, I think it is fair to say that you aren't in fact going to find a lot of serious published research along these same lines.
I am sorry.