What is evident from their letters is that both Mr. Miah and Mr. Mohaiemen are unaware of the theoretical definition of secularism and its social variations at the implementation level across the world.

To measure the extent of its practice in the contexts of Bangladesh and the West, both of them took a black and white approach. As a result, their exchange of opinions resembles barking to the wrong tree. Hence the purpose of my letter is to clarify the issue at hand, as well as to answer some questions that Mr. Mohaiemen has raised.

Before we proceed, it is important to understand the historical facts. Secularism developed as a method of reducing the temporal authority of the Roman papacy. In running the affairs of the state, incumbent monarchs of Europe sought to exert their political power. As regards the laws of the nation, secularism had nothing to do whatsoever, as laws of the nations across Europe, in spite of reducing the power of the Roman Pope, remained as before.

Thus, as of today, the laws of modern European nations are in fact customary laws, with their roots in Judeo-Christian morality. The modernisation of laws that permitted the inclusion of the rights of the minority is a recent phenomenon born out of the post World War-II political reality. Yet, in terms of the origin of law, European laws even today largely remain religious in tone in the guise of secularism.

A great number of social traditions in Europe have withstood the test of time. Status of the Church of England as the Official Church, existence of the law of blasphemy in the UK; Italian law that mandates display of crucifix in schools; primacy of Catholicism in France and Orthodox Church in Greece, and so forth are examples of religious symbolism in practice.

However, due to indifference to religious practices, the majority of the European nations became de facto secular countries, although in theory (de jure), contrary to their claims, some of them are not completely secular. In this respect, Mr. Miah is correct to claim that Bangladesh is more secular than her Western counterparts, as the Constitution of Bangladesh does not allow superiority of one religion at the expense of others, but grants equal status to all creeds.

Apart from theory, what is practised in a society, however, can be pointed out as a shortcoming of the society concerned. But in comparison to other societies, to claim that secularism is absent in Bangladesh, as Mr. Mohaiemen implies, is erroneous, arbitrary, reckless, and lacks empirical evidence.

In light of the above mentioned development of secularism in Europe, to cite the names of less than half a dozen MPs and a few honourary peers, without any authority in the UK, and one "Muslim" member in the European Parliament of 300 million population, is not convincing.

According to Mr. Mohaiemen, presence of six lawmakers is evidence of vibrant secularism in Europe, although he refrains from providing the ratio between the minority representation and the total number of minority population in Europe. On the other hand, with less than half of the European population, the existence of more than a dozen MPs from minority communities in the current parliament as well as the presence of minority cabinet members do not convince him of Bangladesh's status as a secular nation. What an argument!