As a psychiatrist based in Australia, I write legal reports for those Bangladeshis seeking refugee status.

My contributions are necessary when applicants are suffering mental health conditions. This is understandable when faced with the uncertainty, cost and pressure of awaiting residency applications.

A common category are Bangladeshis who fled the country in fear of being ostracised after marrying Christians. Some have converted away from Islam. This category is accepted in Australia as a form of religious persecution, even though Bangladesh is technically a secular country.

On closer scrutiny, many of the accounts are not always true and driven by the desire for migration to a rich country. This is understandable but it remains of note that Western governments consider the situation plausible, something supported by data.

There remains a marked social stigma with regards to interfaith unions. According to a survey conducted by Pew Research Centre from 2008 to 2012, only 10 percent Bangladeshi Muslims are comfortable with their daughter marrying a Christian. The rate of acceptance rises slightly to 14 percent when the marriage is between the son and a non-Muslim girl.

Unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh was formed as a secular country with the dominant religion of Islam. Language and not religion is the organising principle. It is otherwise fairly ethnically homogenous.

There has always been a tension between a secular humanism and strict Islamic interpretation of laws and customs.

But marriage represents the most important social institution of any society. It is the unit of continuity that raises the next generation, imparts values and mediates our lives beyond the household.

Can we really call ourselves a tolerant, secular country if that is not reflected in the most important social institution?

The case of India is worth considering as a close comparison.

A recent Pew survey among Indians found the vast majority did not approve of interfaith marriages. Having interviewed thirty thousand participants, the poll found that eighty percent of Muslims did not approve of their relatives marrying outside the faith and two thirds of Hindus did not approve marriage outside of their religion.

An interesting question in the research discovered Hindus "tend to see their religious identity and Indian national identity as closely intertwined".

Nearly two-thirds of Hindus said it was very important to be Hindu in order to be "truly Indian".

Since the ascent of Prime Minister Modi there have been concerns both within and outside of India of a rising Hindu nationalism. It is most pronounced during cases of communal violence and laws such as the citizenship act which specifically discriminated against Muslims.

The risk of nationalism being closely intertwined with religion represents a great risk to the broader stability of the region. Bangladesh has had several periods of BNP rule when there has been a greater turn towards religious extremism. This manifests in a view that it is not possible to be Bangladeshi without being strict, practising Muslims, effectively excluding other religious groups such as Hindus and Christians.

If India veers towards a strong religious based identity, this will undoubtedly influence the identity of its neighbours. Foreign affairs experts joke that Pakistan and Korea are alike in that they define themselves in opposition to the countries they most resemble -- India and Japan respectively.

The identity of a country is strongly reflected in marriage trends.

For example, Australia is a strongly multicultural country which, at least before the pandemic, had among the highest rates of immigration from Asia of any Western country. But evidence of non-white immigrants integrating and altering Australian identity is illustrated by the fact the country has relatively high rates of inter-racial marriage.

In 2018, a third of registered marriages were of partners born in different countries, compared with 18 per cent in 2006, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The proportion of marriages between two Australian-born people have also decreased in the past two decades -- from 72.9 per cent in 2006, to 54 per cent in 2018.

While the country is far from perfect when it comes to race relations, persistent practices of marriage within a religious group strengthens religious identity in opposition to a shared, national one. This has been one of the problems integrating South Asians in the United Kingdom where inter-marriage rates are relatively high compared to other Western nations such as America, Canada or Australia.

Article 27 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh declares: All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. This constitutional right in theory should be applicable for interfaith marriages. But given many laws are remnants of British colonial jurisprudence, other influences such as the Special Marriage Act of 1872 add complications to mixed marriages. There are differences between the constitution and stated law in Bangladesh, offering fewer protections for those considering mixed marriages.

Marriage has been an endangered ritual during the pandemic with millions around the world forced to postpone or severely restrict wedding festivities. In countries like Australia, many Bangladeshis who may have returned to their homeland to find a spouse have postponed doing so. Alternatively they have married but are faced with huge delays in bringing the spouse into the country.

While social attitudes do not change quickly, the pandemic has united us in our shared humanity. Countries are conceiving what they may look like in the aftermath of coronavirus. As part of its broader trajectory of successful development after fifty years, a greater acceptance of mixed marriage socially and reflected in the law should be an important priority for Bangladesh.

Dr Tanveer Ahmed is an Australian based psychiatrist, and the author can be reached at drtahmed@gmail.com