From the comments, an excellent view on why Hindus so fervently reject the Aryan Migration Theory:
The reason why so many Hindu nationalists fervently reject the Aryan migration to India is ideological and not empirical.Hindu nationalism (‘Hindutva’) is India’s unique brand of fascism and interestingly enough its dynamics work in a similar way to communism; ie history is the product of the struggle between 2 antithetical groups/ideologies.
In this case its the indigenous Indians (Hindus) versus outside ‘invaders’. Hindus are depicted as being cultured, civilized, peaceful and amicable, whereas the invaders are just the opposite: uncivilized, vicious and warlike. The mark of a true Indian is Hinduism, and those following religions which were founded outside India (Islam/Christianity) are seen as being not truly Indian.
Hinduism is seen as being completely indigenous to India and the thought that this religion entered India via migration and conquest (like the Abrahamic religions that they so despise) was abhorrent to the Hindutva fascist. Hindutvadis will have you believe that the Aryan theory was concocted by the British as a means of justifying their imperialism and racism.
Ironically, Hindutvadis subscribe to the idea that India’s history is divided into 3 parts, the glorious Hindu age, the barbaric Muslim age, and then finally British imperialism (followed by independence). This way of looking at History was first articulated by the Brits, namely James Stuart Mill. This the Hindu fascists have no trouble believing, but the Aryan theory is rejected outright.
The reason I’m writing all of this is to show you that Hindutva fascists have absolutely no credibility, neither moral nor academic. If you wish to sample some of their toxic for yourself, then read the writings of Sudheer Birodhkar.
Only in India would such nonsense be taken seriously. If you continue writing posts about India and Indian history, expect a lot of Hindutvadis to drop in. My post should give you enough background information when dealing with the fools in the future.
The problem here is that Hindu nationalism is so widespread in Hindu society that I have met many Hindus who subscribe to most of the Hindutva line while aggressively rejecting the suggestion that they are Hindutvas or even Indian nationalists. All of these folks were high caste Indians, usually Brahmins. Many of them voted for Congress, and some stated that they strong opposed the Hindutva line.
So the Hindutva line, or Hindu nationalism, goes beyond the Hindutvas themselves and merges with Indian nationalism, which is nearly the norm among educated Indian Hindus. Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism merge in the Indian Hindu such that some mixture of the two is simply the normal mindset of your educated Indian Hindu.
We have also had some Indian Muslims on here aggressively opposing the AMT, which also makes me wonder, but it’s not unusual for Indian Muslims to be Indian nationalists. We have had some other Indian Muslims on here who were fervent Indian nationalists. It seems that even some Indian Muslims buy into Hindu nationalist and Indian nationalist theories.
This posts makes many good points though. Hinduism is native to India. The native Indians are good good, peaceful and civilized. Invaders from the outside are bad, warlike and uncivilized. Therefore, Hinduism and really Indianness itself could not possibly have come from the hated outsiders. The AMT implies that indigenous Indians themselves were the hated invaders at one point. No way is that going to wash.
It also means that Hinduism itself came from outside India, like the Islam and Christianity that they hate so much. No way could Hinduism have been another “invader religion” like the Abrahamic religions they despise.