In general, when the country started modernizing under the British rule, there were six alternatives (Box 32.1). It is difficult to place specific writings and theories developed during renaissance easily into these categories. Hindus with their theory of purushartha (specifying satisfaction of desires and wealth among the goals of life) welcomed modernization and did not outrightly reject it. Initially Islam rejected modernity but this rejection of modernity could not be sustained for long and at least a section of Islamic leaders and scholars started realizing the importance of English education and modern developments soon. Nirad C. Chaudhury shows the second tendency though his writings belong to a much later period. Ambedkar’s writings show the third tendency with Navayana, a kind of modernistic Enlightenment version of the Dhamma. In Navayana the goal of the Buddha’s teachings is oriented to “social reconstruction and individual advance in this life” (Patel, 2006). Ambedkar expressed most clearly that the pre-modern social structure contained contradictions. For Ambedkar the pre-modern, varnavyavastha could not and should not be sustained any longer. Banking Chandra Chatterjee shows the fourth tendency. Swami Vivekanand, Swami Dayanand and Sri Aurobindo show the fifth tendency though for them tradition is confined largely to spiritual affairs, and modernity to outside world. Gandhi presents the sixth alternative. Gandhi too was explicit in saying that it is not the Englishmen who due to their superior qualities had enslaved us but we due to our own contradictions had given them chance to rule us. It is not possible to counter modernity any more. Moreover, modernity has a great promise too. It can be rationalized further to serve human ends. The lone thought leader in 20th century India who understood this clearly was Ambedkar. Other leaders including Gandhi carry several doubts and contradictions in their approaches when it comes to social reconstruction. Perhaps the contradictions go with any holistic and integralist view of social change.