The science paper starts with
By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia.
It also concludes:
Earlier work recorded massive population movement from the Eurasian Steppe into Europe early in the third millennium BCE, likely spreading Indo-European languages. We reveal a parallel series of events leading to the spread of Steppe ancestry to South Asia, thereby documenting movements of people that were likely conduits for the spread of Indo-European languages.
However, the Cell paper’s brief is:
A genome from the Indus Valley Civilization is from a population that is the largest source for South Asians. The population has no detectable ancestry from Steppe pastoralists or from Anatolian and Iranian farmers, suggesting farming in South Asia arose from local foragers rather than from large-scale migration from the West.
I am trying to understand if the conclusions from two papers are consistent with each other or conflicting with each other. That is, Aryan Migration Theory is proved or disproved by this? Reason for my confusion is this article which indicates possible disagreement among the authors themselves.
There is discussion here from over 7 years ago but I thought my question requires a separate post since it is based on very recent studies.