Bangladesh Nationalist Party lawmaker Fazlur Rahman on Tuesday said that individuals from martyred families could not be associated with Jamaat-e-Islami and that doing so amounted to a ‘double offence,’ which immediately sparked uproar among opposition lawmakers and caused disorder in the House.

Fazlur Rahman’s remarks were made while he was taking part in the discussion on the motion of thanks on the president’s address in Jatiya Sangsad, presided over by speaker Hafiz Uddin Ahmed.

Referring to a statement opposition leader and Jamaat-e-Islami amir Shafiqur Rahman made in the past, Fazlur said that the opposition leader had claimed to belong to a martyred freedom fighter’s family.

He said that no one from a freedom fighter’s family could ever be involved with Jamaat and that doing so from a martyred freedom fighter’s family would amount to be a ‘double offence’.

The statement led to a tense and chaotic situation in the parliament, lasting for nearly 10 minutes and bringing proceedings to a standstill.

Speaker Hafiz Uddin Ahmed was unable to bring the situation under control as members continued to interrupt and protest. At one point, he stood up in an attempt to restore order.

After calm was eventually restored, the speaker addressed both the government and opposition benches, saying that the entire nation was watching as the proceedings were being broadcast live.

He warned that if JS did not function in accordance with its rules of procedure, it would cease to be a functioning legislature.

Expressing strong displeasure at the conduct of members, he remarked that even children would feel ashamed of such behaviour.

The speaker said that those who had already become grandparents might have their grandchildren watching from the gallery, and questioned what impression such scenes would leave on them.

He urged members to allow Fazlur Rahman to speak and repeatedly called for order in the House, asking all members to maintain discipline.

Fazlur in his statement also said that although August 2024 was significant, it should not be termed a revolution, but rather a mass uprising, and that comparing it with the War of Independence was unjust.

He stated that those who attempted to compare the War of Independence with the events of July mass uprising were making a serious mistake.

He argued that such comparisons diminished the significance of the War of Independence, saying that equating it with smaller political movements was like comparing the Pacific Ocean with a pond or the Himalayas with a hillock.

Referring to historical figures, lawmaker Fazlu said further said that leaders such as Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman laid the foundation of Bangladesh’s independence movement, and later in 1971, leaders, including Ziaur Rahman made the historic declaration of independence.

He said that the War of Independence was a profound national struggle in which around 30 lakh people sacrificed their lives, and that its historical importance must not be undermined by comparing it with shorter political movements.

Raising questions about developments after August 5, Fazlu alleged that under the Yunus-led government, cultural activities had been suppressed.

He claimed that no songs, dramas or traditional folk music performances could take place, and accused ‘dark force’ of destroying the country’s cultural expressions.

Fazlu also alleged that in the aftermath of August 5, 2024, some had denied the 1971 liberation war, claiming that while there were wars in 1947 and 2024, 1971 was merely a disturbance.

He also asserted that Jamaat could not succeed in political struggle because its predecessors did not support the very creation of Bangladesh.

‘Freedom fighters will prevail, and collaborators will never succeed in this country,’ Fazlu stated.

Addressing the issue of indemnity, he questioned provisions relating to incidents involving the police in the aftermath of August 5 and argued that those killed were not engaged in any conflict and were innocent.

He asked where the looted weapons had gone, saying that such incidents should not qualify for indemnity under any law, calling for thorough investigations.

Fazlu also spoke against adopting mourning motions in JS for individuals accused of war crimes.

Referring to December 14, 1971, observed as Martyred Intellectuals Day, he said that members of Al-Badr were responsible for killing prominent intellectuals, such as, Munier Chowdhury, Abdul Alim Chowdhury and Shahidullah Kaiser.

He said that adopting mourning proposals for Al-Badar leaders would send the wrong message in history.

Later, Jamaat-e-Islami amir and opposition leader Shafiqur Rahman protested against Fazlur Rahman’s remarks, particularly those questioning his political affiliation and family identity.

He said that no one had the right to undermine another person’s contribution while presenting their own.

Shafiqur said that he was personally hurt by the comments, especially the claim that no member of a freedom fighter’s or martyr’s family could be associated with Jamaat.

He described this as a violation of his civil rights, arguing that no one had the authority to interfere with an individual’s choice of political party or ideology.

The opposition leader condemned the remarks, saying his identity had been questioned and his political beliefs criticised, which he described as serious offences.

He urged the speaker to expunge the unparliamentary portions of the speech from the official records.

In response, the speaker said that any unparliamentary words or remarks would be removed from the proceedings in accordance with the rules of procedure.

Home minister Salahuddin Ahmed urged that the nation should not be divided again over the history of the War of Independence.

During the proceedings, he called on all political parties to work together in the national interest while conducting parliamentary business.

He also said that Fazlur Rahman was a freedom fighter and noted that he often heard the opposition leader describe himself as coming from a martyr’s family.

Salahuddin said that this was acknowledged and accepted, and pointed out that there were also a few freedom fighters within the opposition.

Bangladesh Jatiya Party lawmaker Andaleeve Rahman said that while the home minister called for avoiding division within the nation, it would not be possible to teach the history of the liberation war without acknowledging the realities of that conflict.

He questioned how the war could be explained if it were portrayed as a struggle against no one, adding that it must be clearly stated that the War of Independence was fought against collaborators, including the Razakars.

State minister for foreign affairs Shama Obaed said that the 1971 liberation war stood apart from all other historical movements in Bangladesh and could never be replaced or compared with any of them.

Referring to political developments following the July uprising and the formation of the interim government after August 5, the state minister said that unfortunately, allegations of corruption had been raised against some members of the interim administration over the past one and a half years.

In response to her remarks on corruption allegations in the interim government, National Citizens’ Party lawmaker Nahid Islam demanded proof of the claims.

He said that as he had served as an adviser in the interim government for a period, any allegations of corruption against him must be substantiated with evidence in the parliament.