Jat Fascism: Lohia’s Legacy of Betrayal Against Rajputs and the Bahujan Masses

Posted on June 10, 2025By kshatriyavoice

A ground-level and discursive analysis of how dominant caste politics in the name of socialism led to the exclusion, erasure, and targeting of Rajput, Dalit, and non-dominant OBC communities in North India

Introduction

Ram Manohar Lohia’s socialism once held the promise of creating an egalitarian and inclusive society, countering both Nehruvian elitism and capitalist centralism. However, over the decades, what began as a progressive anti-Congress, anti-Brahminical movement degenerated in North India — particularly in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan — into a vehicle of dominant-caste assertion, especially by the Jats. This transformation from socialism to sectarianism, from empowerment to exclusion, laid the groundwork for what can be called Jat Fascism — an aggressively ethnocentric politics that appropriated socialist language to reinforce Jat dominance. The consequences have been severe, not just for upper castes like Rajputs, but also for marginalized communities like Meghwals, Jatavs, and non-dominant OBCs.

I. Lohia’s Bania Origins and the Contradictions of His Socialism

Ram Manohar Lohia originated from a Marwari Bania family, settled in Uttar Pradesh —a caste group historically associated with capital accumulation, trading networks, and alliances with princely states. While Lohia advocated radical measures like caste-based affirmative action and economic decentralization, he never explicitly addressed the embedded caste-capital collusion that had sustained his own community’s dominance.Most writings on Lohia fail to examine the mercantile power of Banias, including grain trade cartels tied to Marwari networks, indicating that his socialism avoided direct confrontation with his own class—and this omission enabled future caste-capital alliances.Biographies like “R.M. Lohia: Reminiscences & Candid Reflections” detail his Bania background and political stance, yet gloss over critiques of mercantile capital—suggesting a selective anti-elitism characteristic of his movement.

In fact:

Lohia’s socialism largely ignored the invisible capitalist power of Banias and trading castes, choosing instead to fixate on “feudalism” and “Brahminism” in the abstract.
The movement failed to critique or dismantle the embedded power of Bania-Marwari capital in landholding, grain trade, and credit systems—especially in regions like Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.
Lohia’s “anti-feudalism” ended up being selectively anti-Rajput, framing Rajputs as medieval relics, while shielding capitalist-monopolies of Bania and the rising feudal-fascist assertion of agrarian Jats.

This made Lohiaite socialism fertile ground for an unholy alliance between non-Kshatriya zamindar castes and entrenched mercantile elites—one that would shape North Indian politics for decades.

II. Jat Fascism: Co-opting Socialist Rhetoric

As the Congress weakened, Jats—especially in Rajasthan, Haryana, and Western UP—rose through Lohiaite and farmer-based platforms (like the Lok Dal, Janata Dal, and RLD), capturing the political vacuum , first under the guise of “Kisaan Kaum” and later “Backward Class” assertion.

This took the form of:

Political domination through electoral muscle and rural networks, exploiting OBC quotas without sharing benefits with other OBCs.
Capture of agricultural mandis, cooperatives, and rural bureaucracies, aligning themselves with Bania traders and commission agents.
Suppressing Dalit and non-Jat OBC assertion, while projecting themselves as the sole representatives of agrarian India.

This wasn’t anti-capitalist socialism — it was ethnic caste nationalism by a dominant peasant caste, rooted in land, power, and money. Ironically, Jat elites formed deep alliances with capitalist trading castes, especially Banias, for logistical, political, and financial power.

The new rural oligarchy—Jat landlords and Bania traders—effectively established a new caste-capitalist nexus.

In the 1980–90s, Jats formed partie s like Lok Dal and RLD, using “Kisaan Kaum” rhetoric to secure quotas and dominate local panchayats in Western Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan.

The control of agricultural mandis (grain markets) by Jat leaders like Ajit Singh illustrated how political power translated directly into economic monopoly, often sidelining smaller OBC groups.Academic studies (e.g. Christophe Jaffrelot’s work on North Indian castes) document how Jats captured rural institutions and bypassed other OBCs under backward-class politics.

Capitalist Consolidation & Ideological Cover

Example:
During the 2018 Haryana farmers’ protest, most Jat leaders omitted criticism of corporate farming or agrarian corporations—centered instead on “fair MSP” and caste-based solidarity. Merchants and commission agents (often Banias) backed political actions financially, weaponizing anti-Rajput or anti-Brahmin rhetoric to shift discourse away from economic exploitation.

Citation: Coverage from The Wire and EPW critiques noted the absence of anti-corporate agendas in farmer movements, and traced Bania-led financial involvement

III. From Class Struggle to Caste Scapegoating: The Anti-Rajput Narrative

To consolidate hegemony and distract from their own emerging privilege, the Jat-Bania bloc pushed a new cultural-political narrative: that Rajputs were the feudal villains, the enemies of backward caste assertion.

This narrative served multiple purposes:

It diverted attention away from capitalist exploitation, especially the continued economic control of Banias and the new Jat capitalist class in Rajasthan and NCR (National Capital Region).
It framed Rajputs as archaic oppressors, even though most Rajputs were increasingly marginalised from landownership, education, and political power.
It united disparate OBC and Dalit communities against a common ‘enemy’, while Jats themselves enjoyed land monopolies, state patronage, business ties with capital and a feudal hegemony in the villages, often romanticized by the Bania-Brahmin-media.

Thus, anti-Rajput ethnic hatred became the smokescreen for Jat hegemony and capitalist consolidation in the Hindi heartland.This tactic bore resemblance to other fascist strategies worldwide: scapegoating a rival ethnic-group to consolidate mass caste-class loyalty, while shielding the real profiteers.

In states like Rajasthan, it is increasingly common for Jat politicians and public intellectuals to weaponize the rhetoric of Samantwad (anti-feudalism) as a tool to incite hostility against the Rajput community at large. They harshly critique Rajput elites, while conspicuously avoiding critiques of Jat royal families, Chaudharies, or dominant landowning elites—many of whom wield the same socio-economic power they denounce. Such selective targeting betrays the lack of a genuine anti-feudal stance; if their critique were principled, it would naturally apply to all caste-based aristocracies.

Instead, they often appropriate Rajput royal figures to bolster Jat caste pride. For instance, some claim that renowned kings like Harshvardhan Bais and Anangpal Tomar truly belonged to Jats, accusing Rajputs of “stealing” their legacy. This militant historical rewriting—seen in rallies and public statues—is deeply ironic, as Rajput leaders regularly reject such claims.

Moreover, even if one were to assume that their rhetoric is solely directed at Rajput royals, a deeper contradiction emerges: the very Jat leaders who decry Samantwad—such as Hanuman Beniwal or Vijay Poonia—are often seen lobbying with former Rajput royals for political patronage, alliance-building, and economic leverage. This reveals the selective and opportunistic nature of their so-called anti-feudal stance.

In reality, the true target of this Samantwad rhetoric is not the aristocracy but the ordinary Rajput citizen—the farmer, the student, the small trader, the worker, and the middle-class professional. What masquerades as progressive anti-feudalism is, in truth, a thinly veiled campaign of ethnic vilification and political scapegoating, designed to socially and politically marginalize an entire community.

IV. The Socio-Political Impact of Jat Fascism on Rajput Masses

The emergence of Jat Fascism in parts of North India—especially in Rajasthan, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh—has had far-reaching and adverse consequences for the Rajput community. While dominant Jat leaders and intellectuals project themselves as crusaders against Samantwad (feudalism), their selective narratives and institutional influence have disproportionately harmed ordinary Rajputs—most of whom do not enjoy aristocratic status or economic privilege.

1. Vilification as “Feudal” in Areas with No Real Power

Across districts such as Nagaur, Jhunjhunu, Hisar, and Meerut, the Rajput population has seen a steep decline in both political influence and land ownership. However, public discourse—especially propagated by Jat-led political entities and intellectual platforms—continues to paint all Rajputs as feudal oppressors.

This narrative has become a convenient tool of social delegitimization, branding even economically backward Rajput families as “zamindars” or “thakurs” benefiting from unjust privilege.
The media, dominated by upper-caste and dominant-caste OBC narratives, often reproduces these frames uncritically, erasing the reality of Rajput marginalization in rural power structures, especially in Jat-dominated blocks.

Example:
In Ratangarh (Churu district), reports from 2020 local elections showed Rajput candidates—even when fielded by major parties—were targeted as “feudal holdovers” while Jat-backed independents gained dominance, despite their actual economic clout being higher.

2. Administrative and Electoral Marginalization

As Jat caste networks strengthened through farmer unions, cooperative banks, and regional party structures, they began excluding Rajputs from administrative spaces—especially in local governance, police, and revenue departments.

In panchayati raj institutions, dominant Jat sarpanches and ward members have often blocked Rajput representation, especially in villages where Rajputs are numerically fewer or politically fragmented.
In civil services, informal caste lobbies have been documented leveraging political influence to ensure postings and promotions for Jats, while Rajput officers—especially from non-royal backgrounds—report stagnation, transfers, and exclusion.

Example:
A report in Rajasthan Patrika (2021) highlighted how in Nagaur district, despite forming over 14% of the population, Rajputs held less than 2% of key Panchayat Samiti positions, while Jats occupied over 60%.

3. Erasure and Distortion in Historical and Cultural Discourse

Jat-dominated social groups, often allied with non-academic public historians and caste lobbies, have launched aggressive campaigns to rewrite regional history:

Rajput heroes like Harshwardhan Bais, Anangpal Tomar, and even Porus Katoch are being rebranded as “Jat icons.”
Meanwhile, Rajput historical legacies are increasingly portrayed in textbooks and cultural media as oppressive, reactionary, and anti-people—even in cases where Rajput states historically fought against imperial forces (e.g. Mewar vs. Mughals).

Example:
Hanuman Beniwal and his party RLP have repeatedly raised objections to monuments and government events commemorating Rajput figures, instead demanding “true people’s warriors” be recognized—often implying Jat warriors whose historicity is contested.

4. Social Discrimination and Intimidation in Jat-Dominated Villages

In rural areas where Jats form a demographic majority and control local institutions, Rajput families have faced social exclusion and caste-based targeting:

Land disputes are often settled through intimidation or social boycotts, with Rajput tenants or smallholders finding no recourse due to the caste dominance of local administration.
In some areas, Rajput marriage processions or festivals have faced restrictions under the guise of “avoiding communal tension,” while Jat events are state-sponsored and publicly celebrated.

Example:
In Mahendragarh and Bhiwani (Haryana), there have been documented instances where Rajput youths were beaten for opposing Jat-dominated land panchayat decisions, or for asserting traditional rights during community functions.

5. Economic Side-Lining and Denial of Affirmative Action Benefits

As dominant OBCs, Jats have consumed a disproportionate share of OBC reservation benefits—a fact confirmed by the Rohini Commission’s preliminary data. In the meantime, economically weak Rajputs—especially in arid rural Rajasthan—have had little access to state support.

Demands for economic reservation for Rajputs have been ignored or mocked as “feudal entitlement,” while even elite Jats continue to benefit from backward-class policies.
Attempts to raise Rajput welfare organizations or scholarships are often labelled as “casteism” in academic and political spaces dominated by Jat voices.

V. Jat Fascism and Its Betrayal of Bahujan Politics

Far from empowering the Bahujan masses, the Jat-Bania socialism that emerged in post-Lohia North India has systematically betrayed the very castes it claimed to uplift. Under the guise of socialist politics, dominant agrarian castes like Jats consolidated socio-political power, suppressing Dalit and non-dominant OBC aspirations, distorting caste discourse, and establishing a new form of regional oligarchy that mirrors the very feudalism they claim to resist.

1. Dalits: Meghwals, Jatavs, and the Crushing of Autonomous Assertion

In Jat-dominated rural belts of Rajasthan, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh, Dalits—especially Meghwals and Jatavs—have faced widespread structural violence and social exclusion:

Systemic violence and landlessness: Dalits are routinely denied access to village commons, grazing land, and water resources in Jat-majority areas. In villages like Sojat (Rajasthan), reports have emerged of Meghwal women being beaten for protesting denial of access to communal wells.
Suppression of Dalit political assertion: Attempts at independent Dalit mobilization through the BSP or Bhim Army have been met with intimidation, violence, and sabotage. In Western UP, BSP’s organizational strength was repeatedly crushed through localized gang violence, often with the silent approval of Jat-led panchayats and administrative networks.
Example – Rampur Incident (2007): In a chilling case from Rampur, Jatav families faced coordinated attacks after resisting local land-grab attempts. Subsequent investigations revealed collusion between Jat-affiliated local officials and police, who delayed or dismissed FIRs, effectively denying justice.

Further, the rise of the Bhim Army under Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan was seen as a radical shift in Dalit assertion outside the BSP’s electoral model. Yet in Jat-dominated Western UP, Bhim Army meetings were disrupted, blocked, or denied space, and its cadres frequently targeted by police in areas where Jat leaders held sway.

2. Non-Dominant OBCs: Vote Banks Without Power

While Jat leaders claim to speak for the OBCs at large, their politics has systematically excluded non-dominant OBC communities like Kumhars, Nais, Telis, Gadarias, and Lohars:

In Jat-dominated parties—including factions of the Lok Dal, INLD, and even RLD—these castes are tokenized as vote banks but rarely granted meaningful leadership or ticket distribution.
Panchayat politics in Haryana and Rajasthan shows a clear pattern: when non-dominant OBCs contest key block-level seats, they are met with electoral violence, coercion, or economic boycott. In Bhiwani, for example, local records from 2015–2020 reveal near-total Jat occupation of sarpanch and Zila Parishad posts, despite OBC quotas.

3. The Rohini Commission and Jat Resistance to Equitable Reservation

The Rohini Commission, established in July 2017, was a historic attempt to sub-categorize the OBC quota to ensure that dominant OBCs (like Jats, Yadavs, Kurmis, etc.) do not monopolize reservations meant for all backward classes. However, Jat MLAs in Haryana and Rajasthan mounted aggressive resistance to its recommendations:

In April 2018, Delhi TV and Indian Express reported how Jat and Gujjar legislators pressured state governments to oppose the commission’s move—claiming it would “fragment” the OBC identity and “undermine unity.”
Meanwhile, grassroots groups such as the Non-Dominant OBC Morcha demanded transparency and pointed out—based on early draft data—that Jats were massively over-represented in OBC government jobs and education quotas.
Protests in Rohtak and Rewari (2018) were met with police indifference and minimal media coverage—highlighting how the narrative of “Bahujan unity” was manipulated to protect dominant caste interests at the expense of actual backward groups.

The resistance to the Rohini Commission by Jat leaders reveals a deep anxiety over losing caste privilege, even while claiming to represent socialist ideals. This contradiction is central to the politics of dominant caste fascism: suppressing intra-OBC redistribution while loudly invoking social justice slogans.

4. Political Capture, Media Silence, and the Death of Bahujan Coalitions

The dominant Jat-Bania nexus has not only colonized electoral structures but also media discourse and NGO circuits. Their politics has:

Sidelined Dalit-OBC coalitions in the name of OBC unity while ensuring caste hierarchies persist within backward groups.
Silenced discussion of Jat-led atrocities (e.g., Mirchpur, Kumher, Dangawas) while amplifying any incident that can be framed as “upper-caste oppression” by non-dominant groups like Rajputs—exposing the deep narrative bias in Brahmin-Bania editorial spaces.
Suppressed emerging Dalit-OBC solidarity formations, whether led by the Bhim Army, Ambedkarite student unions, or independent candidates, through media caricaturing and institutional obstruction.

VI. Narrative as Weapon: How Brahmin-Bania Media Fuels Jat Fascism

In recent decades, Brahmin intelligentsia and Bania-owned media platforms have played a pivotal role in constructing and amplifying caste narratives that deliberately caricature Rajputs as feudal oppressors, while whitewashing or outright ignoring Jat dominance in civil society, local administration, and agrarian power structures. Concepts like “Thakurwad” in Uttar Pradesh and “Samantwad” in Rajasthan have been selectively deployed—not to critique actual feudalism or caste oppression—but to target the Rajput community socially, culturally, and politically, often regardless of their actual socio-economic position.

At the same time, there has been a conspicuous silence on Jat over-representation and caste-based hegemony across rural North India. This becomes starkly visible in events such as the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots, where Jat-led khap panchayats orchestrated communal violence in villages like Kawal. Yet, dominant media narratives painted the violence as a “reaction to Rajput feudalism” or “upper-caste aggression,” despite the clear absence of Rajput involvement in the actual events.

In districts like Alwar and Bharatpur (Rajasthan)—where Rajputs now possess little administrative or economic leverage—the media still frames them as archaic relics of a bygone feudal order, while Jats, who control local institutions, are rarely scrutinized. This narrative distortion is neither accidental nor isolated—it reflects a broader ecosystem of caste-interest journalism.

Mainstream platforms like The Print (run by Shekhar Gupta) and The Quint (of Rajiv Behl) have played a central role in this distortion. These outlets routinely stereotype Rajputs as “Dalit oppressors” and feudal brutes, while they downplay or sanitize horrific atrocities committed by Jats—including the Kumher massacre (1992), Mirchpur (2010), Dangawas (2015), and Panwari (2016). In many cases, even the names of dominant-caste perpetrators are omitted, or the crimes are soft-pedaled through euphemisms like “caste tension”.

Ironically, while these media houses consistently vilify Rajputs, they often eulogize Jats, publishing inflated narratives that celebrate Jat machismo, agrarian dominance, and rural leadership. Articles referring to Rajasthan and Western UP as “Jatland” not only legitimize caste hegemony but romanticize it—recasting domination as cultural pride and resistance.

This skewed narrative ecosystem—driven by Brahmin-Bania editorial control—acts in tacit alliance with Jat caste politics, ensuring that Jat Fascism is not only normalized but celebrated, while the Rajput community is scapegoated as a feudal remnant, regardless of its actual conditions. As Human Rights Watch and Indian Express have reported, legal and media accountability for Jat-led violence remains minimal, further exposing the caste-selective ethics of India’s mainstream discourse.

Conclusion: From Narrative War to Structural Harm

Lohia’s blind spot on Banias enabled a caste-capital nexus that co-opted socialism.
Jat elites, under backward-class rhetoric, institutionalized casteism and economic inequality, scapegoating Rajputs to avoid scrutiny.
The mool OBCs and Dalits have been systematically excluded—even though the structures were ostensibly for their benefit.

The Lohiaite Socialists that claimed to end Brahmin-Bania hegemony ended up only expanding it with Brahmin-Bania-Jat rule, often more violent and exclusionary at the village level, as Jat physical violence and control over rural resources began to be whitewashed (or even glorified) by Brahmin intellectuals and Bania institutions.

What emerged in the name of Lohiaite socialism and OBC empowerment has been appropriated by dominant agrarian castes like Jats to build caste hegemony, monopolize reservations, crush dissent, and block redistribution within the backward class umbrella. Far from being victims of historical injustice, Jat elites have become the new gatekeepers of state power—ruthlessly excluding Dalits, non-dominant OBCs, and emerging Bahujan political formations through brute dominance or electoral strength but also through control over discourse, administration, and rural economy.

If not confronted, Jat Fascism will remain the biggest internal threat to Ambedkarite, socialist, and Bahujan emancipatory politics in North India. Further, Jat Fascism has operated not only The myth of universal Rajput feudalism has been weaponized to vilify, marginalize, and dispossess the Rajput masses—many of whom today are landless, underemployed, or politically voiceless.

If not challenged, this caste-based majoritarianism—disguised as backward-class assertion—risks normalizing social persecution and historical erasure. The Rajput community must build alliances with marginalized OBCs, SCs, and rural groups, and demand a truly democratic public sphere—free of selective caste hatred and ideological distortions.

Ad Banner

Important Links

User Helpful

Contact Us