Can stripping the officers of lethal weapons end police brutality?

In July and August 2024, when Bangladesh's streets roared for Sheikh Hasina's resignation, violence erupted after Awami League cadres and police forces indiscriminately shot and killed protesters. Police forces, armed with powerful weapons, launched unprecedented attacks, resulting in more than 800 deaths. 

Police were seen using 7.62mm rifles, a weapon typically used in military operations, on unarmed civilians. Evidence from multiple eyewitness reports, photographs and victims' testimonies confirmed that these high-powered rifles were used during the crackdown, causing devastating casualties. 

Ample evidence proved police launched targeted killings with these deadly weapons.  

The issue appears to have resonated with police authorities as the current IGP has raised concerns about officers being armed with such weapons. An internal reform commission within the police has also recommended limiting the use of lethal weapons. 

Safar Raj Hossain, head of the national police reform commission, confirmed that this issue was discussed in the report submitted to the chief adviser on 15 January. However, it was not included in the summary brief shared by the Chief Adviser's press wing.

Not only in the July uprising, historically police forces have often resorted to armed violence as a means of suppressing dissent, with little regard for the scale of human cost. 

From the early days of Sheikh Hasina when several cases of massacre-level police brutality occurred such as Shapla Chattar in 2013, the trend of using lethal weapons to curb public dissent has been deeply ingrained in police forces. 

Several opposition activists lost their lives to police brutality during BNP and the opposition's year-long protests against Sheikh Hasina's autocratic regime in 2023 (and earlier). The opposition claims hundreds of their supporters were killed over the years by law enforcement agencies. 

There are plenty of examples where usage of non-lethal options could have sufficed yet police chose to use lethal weapons, and went on without accountability, posing a constant threat to citizens' rights to protest and free expression.

After the July uprising vastly exposed police brutalities, the importance of regulating police weaponry and clear guidelines for their use is underscored by a recent internal report from Bangladesh's police headquarters. A special committee recommended measures to restrict the use of high-powered firearms. 

The proposal suggests replacing long-barrel rifles with short-barrel weapons, which have shorter ranges and are less likely to cause severe injury or death. The committee also advocated for phasing out revolvers and the 7.62mm calibre bullets commonly used in police operations, favouring smaller, less deadly alternatives. 

Despite such recommendations, their implementation faces significant hurdles. As history has shown, the misuse of deadly force is often not about the availability of weapons but about their misuse in the hands of those tasked with maintaining order. 

In 2016, London police carried out over 3,300 deployments involving firearms, but not a single shot was fired at a suspect. In cases of terrorism or armed threats, a small number of specially trained officers are deployed to neutralise the threat, minimising the risk of casualties among both police and the public.

The question remains whether these new policies will truly lead to a fundamental shift in the way the police approach protests. 

While the recent recommendations from the police committee mark a step in the right direction, the real challenge lies in implementing these changes in a meaningful way. 

"Many try to justify the killings by so many police officers [in the July uprising] that they only followed orders… that police cannot operate as a force if orders aren't followed. Following a command is part of their discipline. But we argue that the force is supposed to obey the lawful orders of the superior, not the unlawful ones. But the question remains that when situations demand, a little scope is there to raise questions of legalities. Arming them with nonlethal weapons instead of lethal weapons [would yield a different scenario]," said Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua. 

"The scope of the law is to limit the usage of force. That use of force cannot entail up to taking a life… even the current police IGP himself raised the question of why we gave lethal weapons to police," he added.

While Bangladesh discusses arming police with nonlethal weapons, many countries in the world have established their efficiency in doing so. In the United Kingdom, for example, the vast majority of police officers do not carry firearms. 

The police are trained in de-escalation techniques and equipped with non-lethal tools such as batons, handcuffs and mace. In 2016, London police carried out over 3,300 deployments involving firearms, but not a single shot was fired at a suspect. In cases of terrorism or armed threats, a small number of specially trained officers are deployed to neutralise the threat, minimising the risk of casualties among both police and the public.

Similarly, in New Zealand, police use lethal force only in extreme situations and officers undergo rigorous training to ensure that firearms are used only when absolutely necessary. These countries show that it is possible to maintain public order and protect citizens without resorting to the widespread use of firearms and other deadly force. What it takes is putting proper emphasis on community policing, intelligence gathering, and a strong legal framework for accountability. 

Former police IGP Nurul Huda calls for a "rational weapon use policy" in Bangladesh.  

"The last movement [July uprising] cannot be the measuring scale. It was a usual situation where the police applied excessive force. But we have to understand if the government itself turns to order the police to use that much force, what can they do? When a civil force uses excessive force, it is not a civil one anymore, it turns into a military," said Huda.   

He continued, "As you will face a maddening crowd or armed terrorists, you may have to carry lethal weapons, but there should be a weapons policy where you will apply force at a proportional rate." 

However, as efforts are underway and serious reform discussion has been mainstreamed, Bangladesh should consider establishing independent bodies to investigate police conduct, particularly when lethal force is used. Transparency, better training and a focus on non-violent methods of crowd control should be the cornerstone of future reforms. 

There is plenty of inspiration from other countries. The solution to Bangladesh's lethal weapons crisis lies in strict regulation of force and management of the workforce to a community-centric approach. 

Masum Billah/Journalist. Illustration: TBS