Reflections on the Arya Samaj often begin with its bold theological stance. Its uncompromising rejection of idol worship, elaborate ritualism, and many post-Vedic practices has been experienced by more traditional Hindus as an attack on cherished forms of devotion. By insisting that only the Vedas possess full authority and by treating later scriptures such as the Puranas and epics as largely corrupt or secondary, the movement has been accused of narrowing the vast and plural landscape of Hindu practice. Dayanand Saraswati’s strong claim that the Vedas contain all true knowledge, including ethical and even scientific truth, has also drawn criticism from both traditional scholars and modern Indologists, who question whether such readings fit the historical and linguistic context of the texts.

The movement’s engagement with other religions has generated further controversy. Dayanand’s polemical critiques of Islam, Christianity, and other Indian traditions in works such as *Satyarth Prakash* have been perceived as harsh and exclusivist, especially when contrasted with more pluralistic strands of Hindu thought. The Shuddhi, or reconversion, campaigns—aimed at bringing Muslims, Christians, and those considered outside the Hindu fold back into a Vedic framework—have been viewed by critics as aggressive proselytization. These efforts, while framed by supporters as religious reclamation and purification, have been associated with heightened tensions between communities and are remembered as contributing to communal polarization in several regions.

On the social plane, the Arya Samaj’s reformist ideals have sometimes appeared at odds with its lived reality. The movement’s principled opposition to caste by birth, untouchability, and social exclusion coexists with allegations that many followers did not fully abandon caste-based habits in practice, leaving a gap between doctrine and everyday life. Its advocacy of a merit-based varna system has been interpreted by some as preserving a graded hierarchy in a subtler form. Similarly, while it promoted women’s education, widow remarriage, and the critique of child marriage, its vision of gender roles has been described as remaining largely patriarchal, emphasizing domestic responsibilities and ideals of purity more than radical autonomy.

Institutionally and politically, the Arya Samaj has not been free from internal and external disputes. Its extensive educational work, including the founding of schools and colleges, has been shadowed by disagreements over management, curriculum, and the degree of doctrinal control, with some observers accusing it of using education as a vehicle for ideological indoctrination. The movement’s association with assertive Hindu nationalism in certain regions, and the participation of some adherents in more militant or exclusivist currents, has led to charges of religious fundamentalism and of deepening communal divides. Critics also note that, over time, the Arya Samaj itself has been seen as developing a kind of rigid orthodoxy, marked by a strong insistence on its own interpretation of Vedic truth and a reluctance to accommodate alternative philosophical perspectives.