In spite of his intimate acquaintance with Gandhi, and in spite of his knowledge of Indian history, Jawaharlal Nehru took a very different view of modernity and modernization. It was not that Nehru was unaware that traditional societies often had denser and more binding sets of social obligations than modern ones. It was rather that he conceived history differently. He viewed it through a different lens. He formed his concepts with a different gestalt.

Nehru was convinced that the direction in time of the arrow of history was from feudalism to capitalism to socialism. Somewhat pathetically, as we see Nehru looking back at him now, he looked upon capitalism as out of date and destined to be superseded by a forward march of socialism that would wipe every tear from every eye. Religion pointed backward, toward feudalism. Science pointed forward, toward socialism. For Nehru, “…every civilization which resists change declines.” (6) “Change” meant moving in the directions that science and technology were driving history. Although he never had occasion to say so, Nehru would have agreed with Peter Berger’s definition of modernity as “the institutional concomitants of technologically induced economic growth.” (7) When you have technology and economic growth you get modernity. If you want technology and economic growth –which Nehru certainly did want, because he saw them as indispensable to end the poverty of the masses, and because he saw them as indispensable to prevent India from being a weak nation that would be conquered by strong neighbors—then you welcome the modernity that goes with them.