I've always wondered, how do you Hindu nationalists contrive to believe that the discovery of the British that they were actually related to the Indians was intended as a 'degradation' of India. We all know that the British during the Empire had a rather high opinion of themselves. Which, do you think, would have had more prestige in their eyes: An ancient nation that derived from the same source as they themselves, or a nation of 'savages' with no relation to the British from time immemorial. In the colonial mindset of the British, the "AIT" actually ennobled Indian culture rather than degrading them, so all your droning about it all being a British ruse to portray India as barbarian makes no sense whatsoever. That's the 19th century colonial picture. Of course today, a culture has not more or less prestige depending on whether it is derived from Indo-European roots, and Indo-Aryan migration: India today would have the exact same prestige if there had been no IAM; it just would be all-Dravidian instead of Indo-Aryan speaking.