Gandhi who is critical of rationality, the hallmark of modernity, for the reason that its benefit comes at a terrible moral cost (Terchek, 1998: 80) does not always have a romantic view of Indian history. He too expressed that our ancestors were cannibals and replaced gradually by hunters, farmers and family villagers. For him this is the sign of progressive ahimsa (Terchek, 1998: 87). It is difficult for us to know whether Gandhi really discovered that the world was progressively moving towards ahimsa or he only wished to see this happening. Ambedkar was religious, spiritual, humanist and modernist. He was against all those ideas which have proved to be hurdle in the further evolution of human society and this includes the prevailing practices of Hinduism, other religions as well as Marxism. He wanted to rationalize Hinduism. No other Hindu could give the idea of having an all-India religious services of Hindus to be filled by any Hindu irrespective of caste on the lines of civil services and making it a binding that such people only preside over religious functions. Only when he failed to do so he rejected Hinduism and adopted Buddhism. Buddhism had the best of spiritual traditions of India and also fitted with the best of the processes of development and modernization. He did not even stop there. He did not accept everything of prevailing Buddhism. He not only argued that Buddhism is the most rational of all religions but he said that the irrational things in Buddhism could not be Buddhist because Buddha was a rational person. I do not want to proceed with this idea further lest you have the impression that I am Ambedkarite. My job is to promote humanism and humanism only. Humanism is my value and my idiosyncrasy. It may come from any side, orient, occident, tradition or communism. Without taking the extreme position that we have reached the end of history (Fukuyama, 2010) also, we see the futility of nationalistic and particularistic reactions to development and modernization. As social scientists we have to identify contradictions within the development paradigm and work to resolve them in a rather liberal, evolutionary framework of development itself. We have to look for development that lasts, that benefits all sections of people and is not so destructive of nature as to become cataclysmic at a later date. Up to a point and in certain contexts this may be facilitated by a traditional critique of modernity but that critique should not become a whim. It is possible to do small scale experiments in de-development, that too in very favourable circumstances, but at the moment it does not seem to be possible to reverse the cycle of development.