Arya Samaj : A Brahmin-Khatri Caste-Conspiracy to Silence Kshatriyas

The Arya Samaj, founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in 1875, emerged as one of the most influential reformist movements in late 19th and early 20th with an avowed mission to purify Hinduism of what it saw as corrupt practices—idolatry and superstition—and to return to the “true” teachings of the Vedas.  While it publicly championed causes such as religious reforms, Vedic morality, and the purification of Hinduism—its emergence in colonial Punjab also coincided with an aggressive bid by certain castes—especially the Khatris, Brahmins, and upwardly mobile Jats—for socio-political dominance. Its social composition, ideological thrust, and regional centers of activity—particularly in colonial Punjab—suggested that it functioned as a revanchist movement of Punjab’s elite castes— Khatris, Brahmins, and Jats, seeking to redefine Hindu identity, consolidate political power, to displace older martial castes, especially Rajputs (Kshatriyas), from their cultural and political centrality in Hindu society.

Inclusive of all its dimensions, Arya Samaj was the ideological mother of anti-Rajput politics—both in design, rhetoric, and strategy. It laid the foundational grammar of anti-Kshatriya social-engineering cloaked in Vedic revivalism, which systematically delegitimized Rajput identity as feudal, impure, or alien to “true” Hinduism. From this ideological hydra emerged key political formations such as the Praja Mandals, Indian National Congress, Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS & Leftist Academicians—each inheriting and weaponizing Arya Samaj’s upper-caste vocabulary to target Rajputs socially, politically, and historically. The dual policy of Alienating and simultaneously Appropriating Rajputs , employed by each of the above traces its roots to the Arya Samaj.

I. Origins and Social Base of Arya Samaj

The Arya Samaj took root most successfully in the Punjab, where colonial transformations had radically reshaped social hierarchies. The disintegration of the Mughal Empire, the decline of Rajput and Sikh aristocracies, and the advent of British administrative and educational institutions opened new opportunities for upward mobility. This was particularly true for literate and mercantile castes like the Khatris, Kayasthas, and Bania-Brahmins, who adapted quickly to the new order.

Khatris, in particular, had been prominent in early Sikhism but reasserted a sanitized Vedic Hindu identity under the Arya Samaj banner to gain moral and ideological hegemony. Already powerful in trade and administration, Khatris—like Lala Lajpat Rai and Lala Hansraj—found in Arya Samaj a platform for cultural and ideological hegemony. Their mercantile background lent itself to the Arya Samaj’s urban organizational structure.

Jats: Particularly in western Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, Jats embraced Arya Samaj as a mechanism for Sanskritization and caste uplift. Jat landlords funded Arya schools and supported reconversion drives as a path toward Kshatriya status (Bayly, Origins of Nationality in South Asia, 1998).

Brahmins: As interpreters of Vedic scripture, they legitimized the Samaj’s emphasis on shuddhi and Vedic revival, while also gaining influence in colonial education and legal systems. Brahmins lent scriptural legitimacy and intellectual leadership to the movement, often steering it toward an anti-feudal and anti-aristocratic rhetoric that indirectly targeted Rajput dominance.

Thus, Arya Samaj in Punjab became a socio-political coalition of upwardly mobile castes seeking to redefine “Hinduism” on their own terms—political, scriptural, anti-idolatrous, yet deeply hierarchical and exclusivist in its modernist reinterpretation of caste and history.

II. Arya Samaj : Reactionary & Revanchists

The Arya Samaj’s rise must be seen as a reactionary movement in the context of caste mobility and socio-political rivalry. Its so-called purification of Hinduism often meant erasing regional , inter-caste, inter-religious and martial traditions—especially those associated with Rajputs and Scheduled Tribes.

Vedic Supremacy and the Erasure of Rajput History

Swami Dayanand’s Satyarth Prakash (1875) advocated for a return to a pure Vedic society. However, it also condemned idol worship, temple rituals, and folk traditions—all of which were integral to Rajput religiosity, such as the worship of Kuldevis (clan goddesses like Chamunda, Shila Devi, or Karni Mata) or the veneration of the Jogi-pirs (Ramdevji Tanwar,Gogaji Chauhan, Pabuji Rathore, Goluji Katyuri). Arya Samajists frequently attacked the cultural authority of Rajputs, their folk Hinduism, temple patronage, and their Kulaparampra (clan traditions), Balipratha.

Arya historians and ideologues increasingly framed medieval Hindu resistance not around Rajput warriors like Mihirbhoj Pratihara, Prithviraj Chauhan, Anangpal Tomar, or Maharana Sanga, but around abstract Vedic purity and moral decay narratives. This revisionism is evident in the writings of Pandit Guru Dutt Vidyarthi and Lajpat Rai, who framed Rajputs as “degenerate Kshatriyas” corrupted by ritualism and luxury (Jones, Arya Dharm: Hindu Consciousness in 19th-Century Punjab, 1976).

Arya Samaj’s insistence on returning to Vedic values often meant erasing or delegitimizing medieval and classical Hindu practices—practices largely shaped by Kshatriya patrons, especially Rajputs. Idolatry, rituals, temple worship, and goddess cults, all of which were part of Rajput religiosity, were branded as “degenerate” or “corruptions” introduced by  foreign influence. This was not merely theological; it was a claim to cultural supremacy and a denial of Rajput historical centrality in defending and shaping Hindu civilization throughout the medieval era.

This often meant trying to redefine Kshatriya identity as merely a Vedic ritual status, stripped of its historical and kinship background The idea was to accommodate all non-Brahmin and non-Baniyas into Kshatriya Varna to fight non-HIndus. In turn, there was emphasis on Rajputs to embrace a homogenized Hindu identity controlled by urban upper-caste Arya elites (Brahmins, Banias & Kayasthas).

III. Relationship with Rajputs: Hostility & Appropriation

1. Tensions with Princely States

Arya Samaj was frequently in conflict with Rajput-ruled states:

1. In Alwar,and Marwar Arya Samaj activities were suppressed by the Rajput ruler in 1933 after inflammatory speeches by Arya missionaries caused communal tensions and disrupting social harmony in villages. The state accused them of undermining public order and disrespecting clan traditions (Grewal, Religious Movements in Punjab, 2005). It also accusing them of fomenting caste tensions and disrupting village social harmony.
2. In Mewar, Maharana Fateh Singh and later Maharana Bhupal Singh viewed the Arya Samaj’s shuddhi campaigns as a disruptive intrusion into rural communal and caste harmony. The Samaj’s attacks on idol worship and temple rituals clashed directly with the region’s  Shaiva traditions, even as it tried to instigate Hindu-Muslim conflicts. The region revered Eklingji (Shiva) and its religious life was heavily shaped by Shaivism, Goddess worship, and kuldevi-vamsha traditions. Arya Samaj’s shuddhi campaign in southern Mewar (notably among Bhils and tribal converts) was viewed by Rajputs as threatening their vassal-client networks. Bhil chiefs and rural Thakurs, though subordinate to Mewar Rajputs, resisted joining a Hinduism that would strip them of their local customs and impose Arya-style Vedic orthodoxy (Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics, 2001).
3. Some Rajput leaders also saw the Arya Samaj’s egalitarian rhetoric as a camouflage for Jat-Bania domination, particularly in northwestern India where Jats were actively trying to fabricate a Kshatriya identity through Arya Samaj mechanisms.
4. Hill Rajputs accused Arya Samajists of promoting a “Lahore-style Hinduism”, divorced from the Himalayan martial and devotional ethos (Grewal, Religious Movements in Punjab, 2005).
5. Garhwal Rajputs (Panwar clan) maintained localized Rajput religious networks, focused on Mahasu Devta , lokdevtas (folk dieties), kshetrapals  (village deities), many of which involved nature-worship. Arya Samajists viewed these practices as superstitious and degenerate, and their interventions in Tehri drew public condemnation from Rajput leaders who felt it threatened their ritual sovereignty.In 1935, protests broke out when Arya activists attempted to shuddhify a group of Christian converts near Srinagar (Garhwal). The local Rajput panchayats refused to accept them as “Kshatriya”, arguing that ritual equality must follow lineage and valor, not mere mantras (Orans, Social Structure in the Himalayas, 1965).
6. Arya Samaj was tolerated in urban centers like Jammu, but rural Dogra Rajput groups resented Arya Samaj’s challenges to temple worship and goddess devotion.After Swami Shraddhanand’s campaigns in Punjab, concerns were raised in Dogra circles that similar efforts among Gujjars, Bakarwals, and Rajput Muslims could provoke social instability and communal tension (Datta, Swami Shraddhanand, 1971).Ultimately, the Jammu durbar refused to recognize the caste status of shuddhi converts and banned proselytism among hill Rajput-Muslim groups

From the standpoint of Rajput elites, the Arya Samaj was not a spiritual movement but a militant caste project—a coalition of Khatri cultural nationalism, Jat agrarian assertion, and Brahmin scriptural authority—aimed at usurping the symbolic and political capital of Kshatriyas.

1. Its rejection of lineage, regional traditions, and folk religion struck at the very foundation of Rajput identity.
2. Its egalitarian posturing was seen as performative, masking a new urban caste hierarchy led by Samaj-affiliated professionals, merchants, and preachers.
3. Its paramilitary-style youth training, mass mobilizations, and pamphlet wars mirrored the sectarianism and social radicalism of Zionists and Salafists.

Consequently, several Rajput states—particularly in Rajasthan and Himachal—banned Arya publications, restricted Arya-run schools, and refused to accept shuddhified groups into Hindu caste society. The result was not Hindu unity but sectarian fracture, fueling caste tensions, communal violence, and long-lasting mistrust within the Hindu fold.

2. Denial of Martial Prestige

Arya leaders often blamed Rajput rulers for India’s subjugation by the Muslims and the British, portraying them as “traitors” or “cowards.” In contrast, Arya Samaj historiography, especially as seen in Lala Lajpat Rai and others, emphasized a Vedic golden age. The Arya Samaj celebrated the Vedic Kshatriya, a hypothetical moral warrior guided by Brahmanical wisdom—not the historical Rajput who defended Hindu kingdoms through actual warfare (see Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments, 1993).where Brahmins and Kshatriyas were coequal but depicted medieval Rajputs as either decadent feudal lords or failed defenders of Hinduism. There was a deliberate minimization of Rajput resistance to Arabs, Turks, Afghans and Timurids, often in favor of a vague Vedic resistance or an Aryan purity narrative, erasing medieval martial legacies which were core to Rajput identity.

3. Selective Co-optation and Sanskritization: Brahminical Gatekeeping of Kshatriya Identity

In certain regions, Arya Samaj attempted to co-opt non-royal Rajput clans by offering them a Vedicized identity via the shuddhi campaign. This often meant trying to redefine Rajput identity as merely a Vedic Kshatriya status, stripped of its historical and regional distinctiveness. The idea was to absorb Rajputs into a homogenized Hindu identity controlled by urban upper-caste Arya elites.

Yet, high-status Rajput clans, especially those with princely ties, rejected this flattening of their identity and resisted Arya attempts at ritual homogenization.

The post-colonial period saw continued attempts by Brahmin-dominated reformist movements—particularly the Arya Samaj—to define who is or isn’t a Kshatriya.

1. Arya Samaj tried to “purify” (shuddhi) Rajputs who had converted to Islam or were deemed impure by Brahmin standards.
2. Rajputs resisted this vigorously in states like Alwar, Jaipur, Mewar, and Marwar, arguing that their Kshatriya status was rooted in ancestry and political sovereignty, not Brahminical rituals.
3. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Arya Samaji preachers—predominantly from Brahmin and Khatri castes—played a significant role in fomenting religious tensions between Hindu and Muslim Rajputs in Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh. Under the guise of Vedic reform and “shuddhi” (reconversion) campaigns, Arya Samaj targeted Muslim Rajput (Ranghar) communities for re-assimilation into Hindu society, often triggering violent communal clashes with their Hindu Rajput kin. These campaigns not only disrupted local agrarian harmony but also weakened the collective socio-political strength of the Rajput peasantry, thereby enabling upper-caste Arya Samajists to monopolize leadership in educational, religious, and later political institutions. As historian Gyanendra Pandey notes, communal identities were not primordial but were “forged in the furnace of colonial modernity and nationalist ambitions” (Pandey, The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India, 1990). Similarly, Tanika Sarkar highlights how Arya Samaj’s aggressive proselytizing created rigid religious boundaries, particularly among peasant castes, fracturing earlier shared identities (Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation, 2001). These divisions served the dual purpose of asserting upper-caste hegemony and neutralizing the potential political threat posed by a unified Rajput agrarian base.

This clash of religious authority vs. political authority created a deep fissure. Rajput rulers did not want their legitimacy derived from Brahmin certification but from historical martial legacy

V. Political Legacy: Caste Polarization and Identity Conflicts

The legacy of Arya Samaj’s revanchist rise was long-lasting:

1. It redefined Hinduism in a way that erased the medieval Kshatriya legacy, focusing instead on abstract Vedic ideals favorable to urban, literate elites.
2. It polarized caste relations by pitting assertive middle castes (like Jats and Ahirs) against traditional martial castes like Rajputs.
3. It undermined pluralistic and regional Hindu traditions, especially those tied to clan-based and martial lineages, sharpening Hindu-Muslim polarization as well as Hindu-Sikh polarization.
4. While consolidating theological hold of Brahmins and cultural hold of Khatris over Hindus, it ensured rise of Brahmins and Khatris into positions of political dominance, particularly in the region from Punjab to Lucknow.

While the Arya Samaj played a role in promoting Hindu unity during periods of religious conflict (e.g., the Cow Protection Movement, anti-conversion laws, and Hindu Mahasabha alliances), its internal politics often prioritized the interests of urban, educated elites over traditional rural peasantry.

The Hindu Mahasabha, with significant Arya Samaj influence, frequently clashed with Rajput-led princely interests at the Round Table Conferences and in legislative councils, as the Samaj-aligned politicians favored democratic reforms and Hindu majoritarianism, whereas Rajputs favored feudal autonomy and religious pluralism under monarchy.

Conclusion: A Project of Control, Not Reform

• The Arya Samaj’s campaign to “purify” Hinduism was in reality an attempt to reconstruct it in the image of select castes and regional elites, often to displace the pluralist socio-religious traditions. Its hyper-scripturalism, iconoclasm, and conversion zeal bore uncomfortable similarities to the very Abrahamic ideologies it claimed to resist. To the Rajput aristocracy and their networks of temples, clans, and traditions, the Samaj appeared not as a savior of Hinduism, but as a divisive revisionist sect—divisive, iconoclastic, and politically opportunistic. Its erasure of medieval Rajput history, and its aggressive shuddhi campaigns revealed a deeper desire to displace Rajput martial hegemony with a new Vedic-Brahminical-Jat-Khatri elite. Its relationship with Rajputs was thus marked by cultural hostility, political competition, and symbolic appropriation.

In trying to erase caste, the Arya Samaj merely recast caste in its own mold. And in seeking to unify Hindu society, it deepened intra-Hindu fault lines, particularly between martial rural orders and emergent urban elites. In doing so, Arya Samaj may have won the battle for scriptural dominance but lost the trust of those who had once bled to preserve the very civilization it claimed to defend.

References:

• Bayly, Susan. Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton University Press, 1993.
• Grewal, J.S. Religious Movements in Punjab. Manohar, 2005.
• Jones, Kenneth W. Arya Dharm: Hindu Consciousness in 19th-Century Punjab. University of California Press, 1976.
• Sharma, S.L. Social Movements and Social Transformation: A Study of Arya Samaj and Other Movements. Rawat Publications, 2006.
• Lajpat Rai, Lala. Arya Samaj: An Account of its Origin, Doctrines, and Activities with a Biographical Sketch of the Founder. 1915.
• Pandey, Gyanendra. The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India. Oxford University Press, 1990.
• Datta, V.N. Swami Shraddhanand: His Life and Causes. Oxford University Press, 1971.
• Bayly, Christopher. Origins of Nationality in South Asia: Patriotism and Ethical Government in the Making of Modern India. Oxford University Press, 1998.
• Bayly, Susan. Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• Bamzai, P.N.K. A History of Kashmir. Metropolitan Book Co., 1962.
• Dirks, Nicholas. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press, 2001.
• Hasan, Mushirul. Legacy of a Divided Nation: India’s Muslims Since Independence. Oxford University Press, 2005.
• Majumdar, R.C. The History and Culture of the Indian People: Classical Age. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1951.
• Omissi, David. The Sepoy and the Raj: The Indian Army, 1860–1940. Palgrave Macmillan, 1994.
• Sharma, G.N. Social Life in Medieval Rajasthan. Publication Scheme, 1998.
• Thapar, Romila. “The Theory of Varna and the Social Framework.” Indian Historical Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1979.
• Tod, James. Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan. Vol. II, Oxford University Press.