Arya Samaj approached the problem of caste and untouchability by returning, in its own understanding, to what it saw as the spirit of the Vedas. It rejected the rigid, hereditary caste structure as a later distortion, arguing that the original four varnas were meant to be grounded in guna and karma—individual qualities and actions—rather than birth. This reinterpretation framed caste hierarchy and untouchability as un-Vedic and morally indefensible, since all human beings were understood to share the same ātman. In this way, scriptural authority was turned against social practices that had long claimed that very authority for their justification.

On the practical plane, Arya Samaj sought to embody these principles in its institutional life and social reforms. Membership and participation in its congregational activities were open to all, including those historically labeled “untouchable.” Schools and educational institutions associated with the movement admitted students irrespective of caste, and there was active encouragement of inter-dining and inter-caste social interaction. Sacred thread ceremonies were performed for those from lower castes, and access to religious rites and rituals was extended to groups previously excluded from them.

The movement also linked the critique of caste to broader efforts at social upliftment. Educational initiatives for marginalized communities, along with programs such as widow remarriage and support for orphans, were understood as part of dismantling the social stigma attached to birth and status. Economic and vocational training for the so‑called “Depressed Classes” further aimed to erode the material foundations of caste-based discrimination. Through the practice of śuddhi, those who had left Hinduism were ritually welcomed back without re‑inscribing old caste barriers, emphasizing a shared Vedic identity over inherited social divisions.

At the same time, Arya Samaj worked within a reformed Hindu framework rather than attempting a total social revolution. Its ideal was not the abolition of varna as such, but its purification and re‑grounding in merit and ethical conduct. This gave the movement a distinctive character: radical in its rejection of birth-based hierarchy and untouchability, yet conservative in its desire to restore what it regarded as an authentic Vedic order. The tension between these impulses shaped both its strengths and its limitations, but its challenge to entrenched caste practices marked a significant spiritual and social intervention.