I shall try to elaborate the behavioural (both over and covert) traits of these two groups. Let me first start with the religious fundamentalists of our country. Some of their basic characteristics are: (a) they are intolerant of any opinion with which they do not agree; (b) they pretend to behave in a way as if they are chosen by God to be the sole preacher, practitioner and defender of our religion (a vision not much different from the Zionists); (c) they invoke the name of Hadith to justify whatever they proclaim (but, if questioned about the authenticity or source of their Hadith, they violently retort that the questioner is murtad); (d) they 'preach' to eliminate all who disagree with them, and would gleefully 'practice' the elimination task if they can establish their rule in the country; (e) they target women as their principal topic for criticism in their sermons accusing them of a Mullah version of modesty-be it a roadside rally or Friday prayer or a chehlum (but never speak of other social evils in offices, business and government, and conveniently forgetting Quranic injunction for men to lower their gaze in front of non-relative women); and (f) they portray themselves to the society in a 'holier than thou' demeanour.

The progressive secularists of our country are comprised of a wide variety of specimens. They include marxists, revolutionaries, communists, atheists, agnostics, anti-Islamists, non-believers because they are ignorant of any religion, escapists, opportunists etc. The basic characteristics of this group of people are generally similar to those of religious fundamentalists. For example, (a) they are also intolerant of others' opinions, especially if they involve religion; (b) they try to behave as if they are genetically destined to be the sole and best judge of what is good for everyone else; (c) they use the word 'democracy' to justify anything they want to do without, of course, showing any respect for difference of opinion; (d) they -- like the fundamentalists -- would seek to 'eliminate' all who are opposed to them, frequently using the term 'nirmul,' just as the religious fundamentalists use the word 'murtad' for critics; (e) they always and routinely target (in their speeches and sermons -- roadside or air conditioned seminar halls) anything and anyone related to religion -- especially if it is Islam -- labelling it or the person 'communal', conveniently ignoring the fact that some of their own comrades are engaged in extortion and banditry in parts of the country in the name of 'democracy'; and (f) they also portray themselves to the society in a 'holier than thou' demeanour.

The Oxford dictionary defines a 'bigot' as an intolerant person who holds strongly to a belief in defiance of reason or argument. The dictionary also defines a 'fundamentalist' as someone who believes in literal interpretation of traditional beliefs. On the basis of these definitions, both religious fundamentalists and progressive secularists of our country qualify to be labelled as bigots and fundamentalists -- except that the secularists (because of their allergy and/or hostility toward religion) deserve a new nomenclature: irreligious fundamentalist! The religious fundamentalists claim themselves as 'religious' because it enables them to get a status of being 'beyond reproach' among the common people, while the progressive secularists enjoy the 'progressive' label because it makes them look modern and forward-looking, even though their methods may be regressive and discriminatory. The common denominator of the arguments of both groups is: "We are right, everyone else is wrong." Although the groups are apparently looked upon as opposed to each other by the common person in the society, yet their covert goal is fascist totalitarianism. The paths of their activities might look different, but their methods, logic and behaviour are similar. That is why I chose to call them as the two faces of the same coin -- a coin that is like a cancer in our society!