The recent announcement by the home affairs adviser of Bangladesh’s interim government — to strip the regular police force of lethal weapons, allowing only the Armed Police Battalion to retain such arms — marks a significant turning point in the country’s law enforcement trajectory. Made in response to widespread criticism over the police’s handling of the July-August 2024 protests, this bold move signals a significant shift in both the philosophy and practice of policing. It aligns with a growing global consensus: the excessive militarisation of police forces can erode public trust and exacerbate the very tensions law enforcement is meant to manage.
Bangladesh is not alone in grappling with the challenge of ensuring public safety while maintaining civil liberties. Many countries have experimented with forms of police demilitarisation, particularly in response to public outrage over police violence.
In the United Kingdom, most police officers do not carry firearms during routine duties. Armed units are deployed only when necessary, and the country continues to enjoy a low rate of police-involved shootings and relatively high public trust in law enforcement institutions. According to a 2023 Home Office report, less than 5 per cent of officers are trained and authorised to carry firearms at any given time.
Similarly, New Zealand adopted a non-routine arming model. Following an experimental phase of armed response teams in 2020, public backlash led the police commissioner to suspend the programme, reinforcing the country’s commitment to community-centric and de-escalatory policing.
Norway follows a model where most officers do not carry guns as a matter of routine. In Norway, officers can access firearms from locked compartments in their vehicles when absolutely necessary. This approach reflects a fundamental commitment to minimising violence, even from those tasked with enforcing the law.
Japan, though more rigid in its social control mechanisms, also uses non-lethal policing as a default. The emphasis is on pre-emptive community engagement, mediation, and rigorous accountability, contributing to very low rates of both crime and police violence.
In the United States, by contrast, decades of increasing police militarisation have culminated in a crisis of legitimacy. The heavy-handed response to protests, particularly those following the deaths of George Floyd and others, has triggered a powerful public reckoning. Cities like Camden, New Jersey, responded by disbanding and reconstituting their police departments under new community-focused mandates, seeing crime drop and trust improve as a result.
The July-August 2024 protests, which erupted amid political and economic grievances, served as a cauldron for public sentiment about law enforcement. Reports and video footage of officers using live ammunition and excessive force against demonstrators circulated widely, drawing both domestic and international condemnation. The interim government’s response suggests an acknowledgement that policing through fear and force is both unsustainable and incompatible with democratic norms.
According to media reports, long-barrel firearms were used during the July uprising, resulting in over 800 deaths and more than 11,000 injuries. Injuries from lead pellets alone caused blindness in over 400 protesters. The fatalities revealed that most victims were shot with live rounds or shotgun pellets, primarily targeting the head, chest, and abdomen.
In this context, restricting the use of lethal weapons is a crucial step towards restoring public trust in the police. Long viewed as instruments of repression, the police have faced widespread mistrust due to allegations of excessive force, custodial deaths, partisan conduct, and lack of accountability. The government’s decision to limit access to deadly force reflects a strategic shift towards a more democratic, community-focused model of policing. If supported by institutional reforms, improved training, and greater transparency, this move could help rebuild public confidence and foster a more accountable, citizen-centred police force.
Moreover, the decision echoes recommendations from global bodies like the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which in February 2025 also urged reforms to elite law enforcement units, including calls for the disbanding or restructuring of the Rapid Action Battalion due to credible allegations of extrajudicial killings.
Lethal weapons can escalate tension, fear, and violence during protests. Armed officers often symbolise state repression, provoking resistance. In contrast, deploying unarmed police signals a shift towards peaceful engagement. These officers tend to prioritise dialogue, negotiation, and de-escalation, maintaining order while reinforcing democratic values like restraint and proportionality. In politically sensitive settings like Bangladesh, such a strategy can reduce violence and create space for constructive civic expression.
Disarming regular police also paves the way for institutional reform and skill development. Modern policing increasingly relies on emotional intelligence, negotiation, and conflict resolution rather than force. Retraining officers in non-lethal methods and psychological tactics — especially for protests, disputes, and daily interactions — can enhance their effectiveness. Training in human rights, communication, and stress management helps reframe the police as a disciplined, service-oriented force, gaining both authority and public trust over time.
However, the retention of lethal weapons by the Armed Police Battalion warrants careful consideration. As a paramilitary force, they play a crucial role in maintaining internal security, recovering illegal arms, combating armed criminal groups, and supporting other law enforcement agencies during crises, major events, and political unrest. The Armed Police Battalion functions primarily as a support unit, with its battalions strategically stationed at nodal points across the country. However, in the face of a sudden and grave deterioration of law and order — such as during riots, inter-party political clashes, or confrontations involving heavily armed criminal or vigilante groups — the frontline police units at the district and thana levels, including specialised formations like the Special Armed Force, Range Reserve Force, and other units such as the River Police, often find themselves ill-equipped to effectively respond. These unarmed or lightly armed personnel may be overwhelmed by the firepower and tactics of such hostile elements.
In such critical scenarios, the timely reinforcement and deployment of Armed Police Battalions to the ground-level operational units becomes not only essential but urgent. Unfortunately, current realities and logistical constraints make such reinforcement both difficult and impractical. This operational gap significantly undermines the overall capacity of the police to respond to high-threat situations.
The situation is further complicated by the lingering threat posed by looted firearms, a substantial cache of which remains unaccounted for since the violent incidents that followed the events of 5th August, 2024. These weapons, still in the hands of criminal elements or vigilante groups, could be used at any moment — against law enforcement officers or innocent civilians — especially during periods of heightened political tension, such as the upcoming national elections.
Moreover, in the aftermath of the recent student movement, the morale of the Bangladesh police appears significantly fractured, leaving the force not fully capable of delivering its duties and services in line with public expectations. This erosion of confidence has created a visible gap between the police and the communities they serve. Some security experts consider that this situation is likely to be further compounded by the decision to strip officers of their lethal weapons, a move that, while likely intended to avoid escalation, may inadvertently instill a sense of psychological vulnerability among personnel. This perceived sense of vulnerability could seriously undermine their readiness and ability to respond decisively to armed gangs or violent criminal elements. Unless immediate measures are taken to rebuild morale, restore operational confidence and re-establish trust with the public, the effectiveness of the police force in maintaining law and order may be critically compromised.
In this context, any move to strip operational police units of their lethal weapons would not be so easy. Doing so would compromise their ability to protect life and property, embolden armed criminals, and expose both law enforcement and the public to unacceptable levels of risk. Therefore, maintaining a well-armed and adequately supported police force, backed by the rapid deployment capability of APBn units, is crucial to ensuring public safety and preserving the rule of law in times of crisis.
Security analysts generally hold the view that there is nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement agencies possessing lethal weapons. The core concern lies not in the possession but in the indiscriminate and excessive use of such weapons without due adherence to established protocols, legal safeguards, and standard operating procedures. This problem is further compounded when the deployment of force — including lethal force — is influenced or directed by the ruling political authority rather than guided by professional judgement or legal necessity.
A troubling example emerged during the 2024 quota reform movement, when a senior police officer was seen briefing Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal using video footage that captured the killing of demonstrators. Expressing frustration and helplessness, the officer reportedly remarked, ‘We shoot one dead, or we wound one, and that is the only one that falls. The rest don’t budge, sir.’ His statement conveyed a sense of alarm and even fear at the protesters’ resolve, rather than any acknowledgement of the gravity of using deadly force on unarmed civilians. ‘And that is why we are so scared and worried,’ he added, as the then home minister, according to witnesses, watched the footage impassively — a protester’s lifeless body on screen eliciting no visible sign of concern, remorse, or moral discomfort.
The absence of accountability or critical response from the political leadership effectively signalled tacit approval of such actions. In an environment devoid of meaningful oversight or restrictions on the excessive use of force, elements within the police — particularly overzealous officers — acted with impunity. As a result, a significant number of protesters lost their lives during the crackdown, raising serious questions about the ethical boundaries and institutional culture of law enforcement under political direction.
Bangladesh, by taking the bold and unprecedented step of disarming its regular police force, appears to be aligning itself with global best practices observed in countries that have prioritised de-escalation, transparency, accountability, and community trust over confrontational or militarised policing. This policy shift suggests a deliberate move towards fostering a more people-centric approach to law enforcement. However, a note of caution is warranted. The socio-economic conditions, political culture, and degrees of political polarisation in those countries are often markedly different from the complex realities of Bangladesh. In the context of the current interim government, security forces and police have been struggling to manage widespread demonstrations and public disturbances, some of which have turned violent, posing serious threats to both lives and property. It has become a common practice for groups to gather near Jamuna, the residence of the chief adviser, block the road to press their demands, and at times turn violent and unruly, necessitating immediate police intervention. Disarming the regular police in such a volatile environment may unintentionally weaken their capacity to respond effectively to armed or aggressive elements, potentially compromising public safety and emboldening criminal actors. Therefore, while the intent behind this policy may be commendable, its implementation requires a context-specific approach that considers the unique challenges Bangladesh faces.
However, this policy must be supported by structural changes. There should be clear rules of engagement for the Armed Police Battalion focusing on the need for robust oversight mechanisms. Without transparent protocols, there is a risk that the APBn could evolve into an unaccountable or disproportionately forceful wing within the broader policing structure. To prevent misuse of power or the emergence of parallel enforcement cultures, the APBn’s operations must be guided by strict accountability measures, independent audits, and clear guidelines outlining the circumstances under which force, especially lethal force, may be used. Transparency in deployment strategies, public reporting, and internal disciplinary systems will be crucial to maintaining public trust and institutional integrity.
In Bangladesh, firearms may only be used as a last resort in specific situations: for the private defence of persons or protection of property (Sections 96–106 of the Penal Code), effecting arrests under certain circumstances (Section 46 of the CrPC), or dispersing unlawful assemblies (Sections 127–128 of the CrPC). Their use must be strictly controlled to minimise harm and ensure public safety. Magistrates are crucial in authorising and overseeing the use of force, ensuring adherence to legal standards, and providing detailed post-incident reports. Additionally, independent executive inquiries are conducted after firearm use to assess its justification and compliance with protocols, promoting transparency and accountability.
The Dhaka Metropolitan Rules 814 provide directives on the use of force and firearms. In addition, the Police Regulations of 1943 include Chapter 4, from Regulations 145 to 158, which covers the deployment of armed units and the use of firearms by police during riots and civil disturbances. However, the other seven Metropolitan police units and the Rapid Action Battalion lack specific operational guidelines for the use of firearms, as the existing procedures do not apply to these forces.
Disarming the police must not result in operational weakness. To maintain effectiveness and ensure officer safety, it is imperative that police personnel be adequately equipped with a full range of non-lethal tools. This includes tasers, batons, protective shields, pepper spray, body cameras, and modern communication devices that enable coordinated responses. Equally important is comprehensive training in the appropriate use of these tools, ensuring that officers understand when and how to deploy them safely and effectively. Without these provisions, police may find themselves inadequately prepared to handle confrontations, leading to either under-response or overreaction in critical situations.
Transitioning from an armed to a largely unarmed police force is a complex and sensitive process that should be undertaken in a measured and phased manner. An abrupt withdrawal of firearms without comprehensive planning, proper infrastructure, or institutional readiness could result in operational gaps and public insecurity. A pilot-based approach — starting in select jurisdictions with relatively stable law-and-order environments — can serve as a testing ground for procedures, training modules, and community engagement strategies. Lessons learned from these pilots can then inform broader implementation, ensuring that the reform is both sustainable and adaptable to local realities.
For any major policing reform to succeed, it must be inclusive and consultative. The voices and concerns of rank-and-file police officers, civil society organisations, legal experts, human rights advocates, and community leaders should all be incorporated into the planning and implementation process. Such engagement not only builds trust and ensures broader acceptance of the reform but also helps identify practical challenges and craft context-sensitive solutions. Ensuring buy-in from all levels of society will be key to transforming the police into a more responsive, community-focused institution capable of upholding both security and democratic values.
Bangladesh’s decision to disarm the regular police is not without risk, but it is a bold and visionary step that places the country among a growing group of nations rethinking the role of force in public service. The success of this initiative will depend on sustained political will, transparent execution, and a genuine commitment to building a police force that serves, rather than intimidates, its people.
Ìý
Dr Md Motiar Rahman is a retired deputy inspector general of police.
