On September 1, 2025, White House trade advisor Peter Navarro fired salvos at the Indian social hierarchy that remains entrenched for centuries. Navarro, while discussing the US-India tariff spectacle on TV, stated that “Brahmins” were “profiteering at the expense of the Indian people” through the purchase of discounted Russian oil. Such comments brought a swift response from Indian officials who not only dismissed the remarks by terming them “baseless” but also as “fatuous” and “vicious,” saying that they belong to “19th-century colonial stereotypes”. In order to understand the gravity of such statements from Navarro, there should be an scholarly examination of such narratives beyond headlines by historicizing the reality of the Brahmin class that by the virtue of being the so called ‘superior class’ within the Hindu social structure has been marginalizing majority of the populace. The concept is well ingrained in India’s social and strategic culture that it was a foregone conclusion that its use as a geopolitical cudgel was to ignite a firestorm.
- Contextual Review
Brahmins had remained the dominant sociopolitical class since the Vedic era, with their hegemony challenged only during the centuries of Muslim rule until British colonization. Resultantly, the Dravidian movement arose in the early 20th century as a reaction to perceived Aryan and Brahminical domination. The Justice Party (1916) and later the Self-Respect Movement led by Periyar emphasized linguistic, cultural, and racial distinctions between northern “Aryans” and southern “Dravidians.” However, movements to restraint Brahmin hegemony were unsuccessful.
Brahminism in India refers to the social, cultural, economic and ideological dominance of Brahmin Hindus. Historically they held privileged positions in Hindu society. In the early Vedic period, the caste “Brahmin” referred to a priestly class or a group of people who possessed spiritual knowledge and performed religious rituals. With a passage of time, the status of Brahmins evolved, and they became increasingly associated with privilege, power, and social dominance. As Edwin Bryant explains, the fusion of Aryans and indigenous traditions gave rise to Brahmanism during the Vedic period, an elite-driven system shaped by the intellectual and ritual frameworks of the invading Aryan Brahmins, who were blonde.
Peter Navarros is not the first one but most of the Western scholars have criticized the Brahminical institution as exploitative, noting its role in subjugating native populations and formalizing a ritualistic religion that divided society by caste. William Ward, a missionary scholar, went so far as to describe ‘Hindu System’ as “puerile, impure, and bloody.”
Another scholar Mortimer Wheeler, argued that Indo-Aryan speakers entered Northwest India around 1500 BCE, overthrowing the then urban order and instituting a new socio-religious system based on Vedic rituals and hierarchies subsequently laid the foundation of Brahminic Hinduism. He further added that these Indo Aryans conquered, displaced, or assimilated the surviving remnants of the indigenous population of the Harappan Indus Valley civilization, who then became the subaltern castes of the Brahminic Hindu caste-system. The sacred book for Hindus, Rigveda itself contains references to conflicts with indigenous “Dasa” and “Dasyu” peoples, often described as dark-skinned and godless. In one passage, the Hindu god Indra is praised for destroying the fortresses of the Dasyus and slaying “black-skinned” enemies, suggesting a racially charged conquest narrative against the natives.
Scholars such as Romila Thapar and Michael Witzel have argued that the Brahmanical order reflected both the dominance and the need to culturally integrate or subordinate the remnants of the Harappan and indigenous populations. Ironically, the period from 200 BCE to 700 AD known as “Golden age,” is considered as an era of Sanskritization of the subcontinent, and of Brahmanical hegemony.
Notably, the term Sanskritization, was coined by sociologist M. N. Srinivas, to describe the process by which indigenous tribes and lower castes adopted the language, rituals, and social customs of the Brahmanical elite to ascend the social hierarchy. This phenomenon helped consolidate a pan-Indian identity rooted in Aryan norms, further marginalizing Dravidian and tribal traditions.
Brahmin priesthood institutionalized a hierarchical order through sacred laws, positioning themselves at the top. In his seminal work, Historical Sketches of the South of India, Wilks identified the outcastes as the aboriginal population of India, who had been subjugated by Northern Aryan Brahmin invaders. He asserted that without conquering the original inhabitants, the institutionalization of the caste system would have been impossible. The caste system in Hinduism was institutionalized due to an Aryan Brahminic invasion to subjugate natives and to relegate them to inferior caste positions. Brahmanism, the Indo-Aryan lineage, and the Sanskrit language are interlinked and they manifest the self-justification and sociopolitical dominance Brahmins.
Not only this, but the ideology of Hindutva and the notion of Akhand Bharat (Greater India, encompassing present-day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan) emerged as Brahminic strategies to maintain power in their favor during the waning years of British colonial rule. This was the beginning of the Hindutva movement, spearheaded predominantly by Brahmins. Former Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief M. S. Golwalkar endorsed the caste system as a meaningful structure. V. D. Savarkar, the ideological father of Hindutva, described the caste system as consolidative, arguing that even Maleechas (descendants of non-Aryan invaders) could find a subordinate position beneath the Brahmins if they accepted Brahminical authority and Hindu cultural supremacy. In 1922, K. B. Hedgewar, another Brahmin, founded the RSS, later joined by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). These organizations, collectively known as the Sangh Parivar (RSS family), shared the common goal of establishing India as a Hindu nation with Brahmin hegemony. Hindu radical parties always supported caste system. Even today exactly this mindset is reflected in their statements and political orientation.
In the colonial military context, the dominance of high-caste Hindus particularly Rajputs and Brahmans reflected both privilege and constraint. Rajputs, once exalted for their chivalric resistance and refusal to yield, and Brahmans, praised for their discipline, physique, and ritual purity, initially monopolized military service in the Bengal Army. Yet their rigid adherence to caste customs, especially food taboos, segregation, and ritual exclusiveness often complicated regimental life and limited adaptability, even as it created pride, honour, and cohesion. British reliance on these “twice-born” groups both sustained their social prestige and exposed their vulnerabilities, as over time recruitment challenges and the rise of other martial communities diminished their pre-eminence. This dynamic reveals how caste privilege operated not only as a marker of status but also as a structural force shaping military discipline, identity, and hierarchies within colonial power arrangements.
As seen in the case of Rajputs and Brahmans in the Bengal Army, caste was not just a matter of ritual but a determinant of power, privilege, and access to military service under colonial rule. The case of Brahmin dominance in the colonial army highlights how Brahminical hegemony was not merely a product of tradition but an active mechanism of power and privilege. By monopolizing recruitment through claims of ritual purity, physical discipline, and social authority, Brahmins entrenched their supremacy over other castes while simultaneously serving as indispensable agents of the colonial project. Their influence extended beyond the battlefield, shaping regimental culture and subordinating lower-caste soldiers, who were deliberately denied mobility by being branded “unfit.” Even when their authority threatened British discipline, as in 1857, the structures of recruitment and privilege remained intact, demonstrating how colonialism and Brahminism reinforced one another. Rather than dismantling inequality, this collaboration institutionalized it, ensuring that Brahminical privilege persisted as both a cultural force and a political weapon. In unpacking these dynamics, it becomes clear that Brahminical hegemony functioned not only as a social hierarchy but as an embedded system of power that shaped, and was shaped by, colonial rule.
- Contemporary Actualities
While being greatly knitted in the history and strategic culture, Brahminism defines India. It provides the required framework to understand Indian thought process including strategic aspirations. It explains that why India’s resources are serving Brahmins mainly. Brahmins constitute 3-5 per cent of Indian population as per Indian government. However, their share on resources is out of proportioned.
Brahmin Representation vs their Population
The infographic shows the contrast between the Brahmin community’s proportion of India’s population and their overwhelming dominance in key political, judicial, and bureaucratic institutions. It is a statistical evidence of caste-based discrimination, with lower castes facing exclusion, inequality, violence, social injustice and marginalization perpetuated by Brahminism. Their hegemony led to a lack of representation and opportunities for marginalized communities in education, employment, and politics. Brahmin majoritarianism led to the lost cultural diversity and heritage. Not only this but despite constituting only about 3–5% of the total population, Brahmins have historically occupied a disproportionate share of power, ranging from prime ministerial and presidential posts to the civil service, judiciary, and diplomatic positions. Historical accounts, especially from colonial times, show that Brahmin soldiers adhered strictly to caste-based rituals: exclusive cooking areas (chauka), personal meal preparation, ritual purity, and refusal to engage in certain shared military customs. These practices reinforced elite identity, could impede military efficiency in austere environments, and reflect privilege as much as discipline.
The pattern indicates the persistence of what scholars and critics describe as “Brahminocracy,” a system where democratic representation is overshadowed by entrenched caste privilege and structural dominance existing since ancient time.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India (NCRB), annually approximately 45,935 cases of violence are reported in crimes against lower caste Hindus (Dalits) only in one year. However, despite research only few such incidents were found against Brahmins. Moreover, Brahmins live 5-6 year more than Indians of other castes do. The Indian military, often portrayed as meritocratic, remains primarily shapes by Brahminical hegemony. Upper-caste dominance, following the colonial recruitment patterns, persists in the officer corps, while Dalits, OBCs, and Adivasis are underrepresented or excluded. Single-class regiments and caste-based hierarchies reinforce privilege under the guise of tradition, ensuring leadership and prestige remain concentrated in Brahmin and Rajput hands. This systemic bias does more than reflect social inequality; it influences military culture, cohesion, and strategic decision-making, privileging inherited caste networks over merit and talent. Far from a neutral institution, the Army continues to reproduce Brahminical structures, embedding social hierarchy into India’s defense establishment and shaping its strategic ethos and operational effectiveness.
This Brahmin supremacy explains India’s strategic aspirations to become member of the club of elite nations without having required credentials. As opportunities have been an entitlement for Brahmins since ancient time consequently such self-assumed status is reflected in Indian policies of being “strategic freeloader,” where things should come as entitlements without earning them in free and fair world.
Moreover the capture of media space in India offers another window into Brahminical hegemony, where institutions meant to question power instead reinforce it. In a biting critique on Last Week Tonight, John Oliver exposed how Indian media often termed as “Godi Media”, a term used to connote its bias nature of supporting the existing Indian status quo. Channels like Republic TV and Times Now have aligned themselves with the BJP, shielding Prime Minister Modi from scrutiny while amplifying state narratives. By avoiding uncomfortable questions on unemployment, governance failures, and democratic backsliding, these networks embody the same elite-driven privilege that underpins hegemonic structures. Oliver’s emphasis on Modi’s decade-long refusal to face unscripted press conferences and the subsequent blocking of the episode oh his show in India exhibits how media subservience consolidates not just political power but also the ideological dominance of a privileged few.
Therefore, it can be learned that the enduring legacy of Brahminical hegemony that the modern India bequeathed is not merely a social or historical footnote but its defining structure, despite its claims of being the largest democracy that cherishes equality for all. It is a pervasive system that continues to dictate access to corridors of power at every level whether they are legal, executive, or legislative, it also shapes national institutions like the military and media, and fuel strategic aspirations stemming from the sense of inherited entitlement. The structural dominance, which systematically marginalizes the vast majority of the population, ensures that India’s democratic facade often masks an ugly reality of privilege and exclusion, making the critique of Brahminical power not an external stereotype but a necessary examination of its internal engine.
References:
- Bryant, Edwin, and Edwin F. Bryant. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
- Mukul, Akshaya. Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India. New York: HarperCollins, 2017.
- Clothey, Religion in India, 2.
- Despite attempts by Western scholars to rephrase the Aryan conquest theory as an Aryan migration theory, Aryan migration theories still presuppose that the Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans dominated the Harappan population and imposed their Sanskrit language and Brahminic Vedic sacrificial culture upon them. Hence, as Koenraad Elst points out, “[the Aryan ‘immigration’ theory necessarily implies the hypothesis of military conquest.” Eric D. Meyer (2015), The Aryan Controversy Decided? Ancient India Between the Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization, A Review Essay on Asko Parpola’s the Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. 2015.
- Jamison, S. W., & Brereton, J. P. (Trans.). (2014). The Rigveda: The earliest religious poetry of India (Vols. 1–3). Oxford University Press.
- Lahiri, Nayanjot (2015). Ashoka in ancient India. (Harvard University Press, Massachusetts:)
Author: Dr. Asma Shakir Khawaja, Executive Director, Center for International Strategic Studies, AJK.
