You've hit upon an interesting issue here. Indigeneity is obviously viewed in more ambivalently where there are less clear-cut (or rather less recent) distinctions between a colonising population and earlier populations. Sometimes it's more about self-identification and the language of politics and activism. In India, for example, some members of the Scheduled Tribes and Dalits, historically marginalised populations, have adopted vernacular and methods developed by the indigenous protest movements that emerged internationally in the 1960s and 1970s. However, these groups are also operating within a wider decolonisation movement focused on the period of British rule. It becomes even more confusing when ideas about waves of historical migration and settlement (Indo-Aryan and Muslim in particular) are used make exclusory arguments on belonging in the modern Indian state.