22 SOCIAL SCIENTIST analogous developments are scarcely conceivable anywhere in the world...." (1998:13). The ahistorical character of Madan's assertion, for Javeed, is a blow on the face of historical evidence." Thus, Javeed makes a logical move of rejecting the assumed necessarily relation between secularism and the origin of its social space and treats their relation to be contingent. The two arguments that Javeed rejected in Madan are the arguments of space, the western social space. The interesting feature of Javeed's treatment of secularism is that in releasing secularism from foundationalism, of the terrain of space, he offers arguments, which are temporal in nature. While Javeed removed the spatial blockades and seeks to clear the path for secularism I am pointing out in this essay the temporal knots on the way to secularism. The terrain of time is evoked in Javeed at two different levels and contexts. In the context of demonstrating that it is not necessarily a post-Enlightenment idea as even in the "late Medieval and early Renaissance period there was a systematic attempt to bring about some or other form of separation between religion and the state.." (1998: 3) This argument is not a major argument as it is being made tentatively and not substantively. For instance, the examples that are given are the separation between religion and the state2 in the late medieval and early Renaissance period. In fact, Javeed himself admits that the grounds for attempting this were very different than ours. This 'difference' between these two grounds may make, unless proved otherwise, the parallel drawn between the separation between religion and politics in the late medieval and early Renaissance period, either thin or marginal. Therefore, this instance of time, in the context of secularism, is not a substantive one. The substantive argument for time, however, comes when he says that he believes, and I quote him: ..with Hegel, that for humankind there is no going back in history, time is something which cannot be rolled back. And that the unavoidability of their being in certain time does not, secondly, create a chain of necessity;.. We are all caught up inexorably in what is called modernity, whatever be our criticisms and deep reservations about the forms of entrenched modernity. So let us begin with a process that is inherent to modernity and is also inescapably global. (1998: 3-4) I propose to discuss this crucial passage. At the outset let me clarify that I am not raising the issue by asking the possibility like if we are in are they no outs. I agree with Javeed regarding the fact that there is no going back in history. Understood literally, physically it is not possible to go back