Not Persian? I was under the impression that Hindi is Aryan as a result of the Persian invasion of the Indian subcontinent, which also resulted in the Dravidian languages being pushed south.
There weren't really any major 'Persian' invasions of India. The closest would be the Mughal invasions (the Mughals being Persianised Turco-Mongols), which were relatively recent, in the history of India (16th century A.D.)
There are claims of earlier 'Aryan invasions' of India (nothing to do with Persians), meaning essentially an invasion of Sanskrit speakers into India, though to what degree these migrations were 'invasions' in any sense is unclear.
It is also unclear whether migrations/invasions of these Sanskrit speakers displaced Dravidian speakers. It is clear that both Sanskrit/Indo-Aryan speakers and Dravidian speakers partially displaced earlier Austro-Asiatic (Munda) speakers, who themselves seemed to have displaced yet earlier populations.
The commonly accepted view right now is that there was an Aryan migration and not an invasion over the Indian subcontinent. But there are politically motivated narratives abound that are pushing this theory to either extremes (Aryan immigration theory vs Aryan == Dravidian theory). Please don't trigger a flame war. It is surprising as it is that this topic hasn't triggered one yet.
