Here is your short essay on Weber’s interpretation on Hinduism !
Weber’s thesis on Hinduism has been defined by many scholars. Rao points out many problems in Weber’s analysis: Firstly, Weber’s units of comparison were mistaken. Like he studied protestant sects, he should have studied a Hindu sect and tried a comparison secondly, Weber’s understanding of ‘Karma’ is partial and it takes into account the interpretation of only a single school of thought, when there are many; Thirdly, most of such views constructed from religious texts, consider ideas to be stable and unchanging throughout history, which is wrong.
Most of Weber’s arguments have been defeated over the development in the past forty years of Indian independence. By now various studies have established that traditional institutions like joint family and caste have well adapted themselves to development.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Caste associations have helped in spreading education, caste communities have helped in building textile industries in Western India. Joint family has adapted to the modern corporate sector in Madras. Many studies done in 1950s and 1960s, showed that Indian farmers were very receptive to modern methods of agriculture, especially the ‘Green Revolution’ technology.
Weber mistakenly held that ‘Hinduism’ is a homogenous, mobilithic religion. Due to his mistaken view, he postulated ‘one spirit’ for Hinduism, which is again unacceptable. Hinduism is heterogenous, with diverse systems of philosophy and culture.
Within Hinduism itself, there have arisen many sects, which have some similarities with the protestant ethic. Veera Saivism or Lingayatism of the 12th century Karnataka, opposed the idea of ritual pollution, preached that ‘work is heaven’ and advocated self-control. Scholarly studies establish that Lingayats are very active in many entrepreneurial ventures.
