Epidemic of Violence: State Failure and Gendered Insecurity in Bangladesh under the Yunus Regime (Jan–Jun 2025)

Abstract:

This research explores the alarming rise of gender-based violence in Bangladesh from January to June 2025, with a focus on the findings released by Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, which documents 1,555 cases of violence against women and children, including 481 rapes and 320 murders. The study critically analyzes how the political vacuum, fascist governance under the Yunus regime, and structural impunity have contributed to this surge. Drawing from feminist theory, state theory, and securitization frameworks, the research examines institutional breakdowns, Islamist mob impunity, and the ideological use of violence as a tool of repression. Utilizing a qualitative methodology supplemented by content analysis, media tracking, and NGO report triangulation, this article offers a rigorous review of the systemic collapse in women's safety in Bangladesh. It concludes with urgent policy recommendations for international human rights bodies and local civil society to intervene, support victims, and hold the state accountable.


2. Literature Review

The phenomenon of gender-based violence (GBV) in authoritarian and conflict-ridden contexts has been extensively studied across academic disciplines, yet the situation in contemporary Bangladesh demands a renewed and focused analysis. This literature review surveys existing scholarly works on GBV, state complicity, political violence, and structural impunity, with a comparative emphasis on South Asia and the Global South. It identifies major themes, theoretical contributions, and gaps in the existing research, situating the current crisis under the Yunus regime within a broader intellectual and empirical landscape.

2.1 Gender-Based Violence and Structural Power Feminist theorists have long argued that violence against women and children is not merely a social pathology but a manifestation of power relations embedded in political and economic structures (Walby, 2009; True, 2012). Scholars like Kelly (1988) and Hunnicutt (2009) emphasize that GBV functions as a mechanism of social control, preserving patriarchal dominance in both public and private spheres. In authoritarian regimes, this dynamic is intensified as women’s autonomy becomes a symbolic threat to ideological and political hegemony.

In the Bangladeshi context, authors such as Siddiqui (2001) and Huda (2020) have documented how patriarchal norms, legal loopholes, and judicial apathy converge to normalize violence. State-sponsored misogyny, often masked by religious conservatism and nationalist rhetoric, creates an environment where GBV is either justified or ignored. This review builds on such analyses, expanding their relevance to the contemporary moment marked by heightened authoritarianism and ideological extremism.

2.2 State Complicity and Fascist Governance Recent scholarship has shifted from examining GBV as a symptom of social decay to analyzing it as a political instrument in authoritarian governance. Agamben’s (2005) notion of the “state of exception” and Butler’s (2004) concept of “precarious lives” offer critical tools for understanding how regimes manufacture conditions of vulnerability and legitimize violence against marginalized groups. In contexts like Bangladesh, where the state itself is implicated in acts of violence, the boundaries between criminality and governance blur.
Studies by Ahmed and Karim (2018) on extrajudicial killings and Jahan (2019) on political mob violence illustrate how state institutions in Bangladesh have historically facilitated violence for political gain. Under the Yunus regime, this tendency appears to have escalated, with GBV increasingly used as a tool for silencing dissent, intimidating opposition, and reinforcing patriarchal-nationalist ideologies. This aligns with observations by Ghosh (2020), who argues that fascism in the Global South is characterized not just by censorship or militarization but also by targeted gender terror.

2.3 Islamist Extremism and Gendered Violence The resurgence of Islamist ideologies and their collusion with state power is another area of scholarly concern. In their work on gendered Islamism, authors such as Banu (2016), Hasan (2017), and Devji (2009) demonstrate how religious rhetoric is often deployed to justify or intensify violence against women, particularly those who challenge normative roles. This trend has intensified in Bangladesh since 2024, with documented instances of clerics and radical groups calling for punishment against “immoral women.”

Comparative studies from Pakistan (Zia, 2018), Afghanistan (Kakar, 2020), and Nigeria (Ibrahim, 2022) support the thesis that when Islamist ideologies gain political traction, women’s bodies become battlegrounds for moral and political assertion. In Bangladesh, this is evident not only in the surge of rape and murder but also in the public shaming, acid attacks, and social ostracism faced by female victims and activists.

2.4 Global South and Fragile Democracies Violence in fragile democracies and postcolonial states often reflects deeper crises of legitimacy and institutional decay. As Mamdani (1996) and Chatterjee (2004) argue, postcolonial governance often vacillates between populist rhetoric and violent repression, with marginalized communities bearing the brunt. Gendered violence, in this context, is not an aberration but a structural feature of governance.

Bangladesh’s trajectory echoes these insights. Previous democratic backsliding under military regimes and caretaker governments established precedents for extrajudicial repression, but the current violence surpasses prior patterns in intensity and scale. The work of international NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, 2023; UN Women, 2024) highlights similar trends in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Ethiopia, where authoritarianism is linked to dramatic increases in GBV and breakdowns in judicial accountability.

2.5 Legal Frameworks and Institutional Failure While Bangladesh has ratified several international conventions on the rights of women and children—including CEDAW—their domestic implementation remains weak. Scholars such as Nazneen and Sultan (2014) note that although legal reforms have been enacted, enforcement remains selective and politically manipulated. This has led to what Menon (2018) terms “legislative tokenism,” where the presence of laws does not translate into real protections.

In recent years, legal regression has become more visible. The Digital Security Act, for instance, has been used to silence survivors and whistleblowers rather than prosecute perpetrators (Rahman, 2024). This reversal of justice mechanisms is consistent with global trends in authoritarian regimes, where law is weaponized to protect power, not rights (Ginsburg & Huq, 2019).

2.6 Civil Society, Resistance, and the Role of Media Civil society organizations like Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, Ain o Salish Kendra, and Odhikar have played crucial roles in documenting GBV and advocating for victims. However, as studies by Kabeer (2021) and Hossain (2022) illustrate, civil society’s space is shrinking rapidly under authoritarian regimes. Funding cuts, bureaucratic hurdles, and criminalization of activism are now common tactics.

Media’s role is similarly compromised. While investigative journalism has historically been a tool for exposing gender violence (as per Alam, 2015), the closure of media houses and arrests of journalists since 2024 have curbed its impact. Theoretical frameworks from Foucault (1977) and Herman & Chomsky’s (1988) propaganda model are useful here to understand how state control over information distorts public awareness and blocks systemic redress.

2.7 Identified Gaps and Contribution of This Research Despite an expanding body of literature on GBV and state complicity, few academic works to date have comprehensively linked these themes to the current wave of violence in Bangladesh under the Yunus regime. Most studies remain either general (focused on long-term trends) or localized (individual case studies), failing to capture the structural coordination of political authoritarianism, religious radicalism, and gendered repression.

This research contributes by synthesizing feminist, political, and securitization perspectives to analyze the 2025 crisis as an outcome of systemic state violence. It centers survivor narratives and NGO data, offering both a theoretical and empirical intervention in contemporary discourse. It also serves as an urgent call for international scholarly, legal, and humanitarian attention.

3. Theoretical Framework

This section outlines the theoretical foundation guiding this research, drawing from three key frameworks: Feminist Political Theory, State Theory, and Securitization Theory. Each provides essential tools to understand the intersection of gendered violence, political authoritarianism, and the ideological apparatus of state power. These frameworks are applied to unpack the systemic failure of the Bangladeshi state to protect its women and children from targeted violence during the first six months of 2025 under the Yunus regime.

3.1 Feminist Political Theory: Gender, Power, and the State Feminist political theory offers a foundational lens through which to interpret gender-based violence as not merely interpersonal but deeply political. Scholars like Judith Butler (2004), Chandra Talpade Mohanty (2003), and Nancy Fraser (2009) argue that violence against women must be analyzed as a mechanism of power embedded within patriarchal institutions and governance structures. Butler’s concept of “precarious lives” emphasizes how certain bodies become socially disposable through discursive and legal practices, a notion painfully evident in the treatment of female and child victims in Bangladesh.

Fraser’s (1997) theory of redistribution and recognition is also instrumental here. She proposes that injustices faced by women are twofold—economic and cultural. In Bangladesh, the systematic marginalization of poor rural women intersects with a cultural-political environment that devalues their existence. The state’s failure to address this duality reinforces what Fraser calls “status subordination.” This framework is critical for understanding why violence under the Yunus regime disproportionately affects impoverished, politically disempowered women and girls.

Mohanty’s (2003) critique of Western feminism’s universality further reminds us to center postcolonial contexts when studying violence. In Bangladesh, colonial legacies, religious identity, and neoliberal development agendas converge to create uniquely violent structures. The Yunus regime, with its elite financial alliances and Islamic populist rhetoric, exemplifies how global power networks shape local forms of gendered repression.

3.2 State Theory: Repression, Hegemony, and the Authoritarian Apparatus

The analysis of state violence necessitates a robust theory of state power. Louis Althusser’s (1971) distinction between repressive and ideological state apparatuses (RSAs and ISAs) provides a powerful lens to explore how the Bangladeshi state has managed public discourse and institutional responses to GBV. RSAs such as the police and military use overt violence, while ISAs—education, religion, media—subtly produce compliance with patriarchal and authoritarian norms.

The Yunus regime’s structural violence against women operates through both apparatuses. Police refusal to register cases or actively threaten survivors exemplifies RSA functions. Meanwhile, state-controlled media’s erasure of gender-based crimes reflects ISA operations that normalize impunity. Althusser’s framework also explains how ideological control over religious institutions allows the regime to instrumentalize Islamist discourse to reinforce patriarchal hierarchies.

Gramsci’s (1971) concept of cultural hegemony further elucidates how consent is manufactured in repressive states. Under Yunus’s governance, violence is obscured through nationalist rhetoric, NGO co-optation, and staged public displays of moral superiority. Hegemonic rule, in this sense, disguises coercion as consensus, which is particularly evident in how victims are blamed and activists are delegitimized.

Mitchell (1991) extends this thinking by showing how states are not monolithic but fragmented and negotiated. The fragmented nature of the Bangladeshi state, especially under a regime with limited electoral legitimacy, explains the inconsistencies in justice delivery. Some local administrations may resist authoritarian mandates, while others actively perpetrate or conceal violence. Recognizing this complexity is essential to understanding both resistance and complicity within state institutions.

3.3 Securitization Theory:

The Politics of Threat Construction Securitization theory, primarily developed by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde (1998), explores how states construct certain issues as security threats to legitimize extraordinary measures. While traditionally applied to terrorism and war, feminist scholars have adapted the framework to analyze how gender, sexuality, and civil dissent are securitized (Shepherd, 2008).

This research utilizes securitization theory to understand how the Yunus regime frames women’s activism, child welfare advocates, and even rape survivors as potential “threats” to state stability or moral order. Such framing enables the regime to justify surveillance, arrests, and violence against these groups. For instance, feminist NGO leaders have been portrayed as agents of foreign agendas or disruptors of national harmony, thus securitizing gender justice.

The process of de-securitization—returning issues to the realm of normal politics—is crucial but obstructed in Bangladesh. The regime’s reliance on emergency laws, religious edicts, and digital surveillance technologies ensures that gender issues remain in a state of heightened political and moral panic. By situating women and children within the logic of security threat, the state rationalizes their abandonment or abuse.

Moreover, the securitization of dissent transforms civil society and the media into targets. The Digital Security Act has been weaponized against survivors and journalists who report on GBV, accusing them of destabilizing the state or offending religious sentiments. This strategic silencing aligns with what Buzan et al. call “speech acts”—discursive constructions that identify threats and mandate exceptional responses.

3.4 Intersectional Synthesis: Towards a Composite Model Individually, each framework provides critical insights. Collectively, they offer a comprehensive model to explain the Yunus regime’s gendered authoritarianism. Feminist theory highlights the embodied experiences and structural inequalities; state theory decodes institutional functions and ideological control; securitization theory reveals how fear and moral panic are politically instrumentalized.

By synthesizing these perspectives, this study positions gender-based violence not as a symptom but as a deliberate strategy of power. The violence is not random; it is systemic. It reflects the state’s logic of governance, wherein the female and child body becomes both the site and symbol of discipline, ideological warfare, and political messaging. As such, combating this crisis demands a holistic understanding of political power, cultural discourse, and security frameworks.

This composite model also allows for diagnostic and prognostic utility. Diagnostically, it helps identify the mechanisms of oppression and impunity. Prognostically, it suggests that meaningful intervention must target ideological apparatuses, legal regimes, and political discourse simultaneously. Without disrupting the hegemonic narratives that normalize violence or the institutional frameworks that protect perpetrators, no amount of legal reform will yield transformative justice.

4. Research Methodology

This section outlines the methodological approach taken in this study to critically examine the surge of gender-based violence in Bangladesh between January and June 2025 under the Yunus regime. The approach integrates qualitative and content-analytic strategies, drawing from documentary evidence, survivor narratives, institutional data, and media reports. The methodological aim is to interpret both the discursive and material dimensions of the violence and situate them within broader political and structural contexts.

4.1 Research Design The study adopts a qualitative exploratory design, which is ideal for examining complex socio-political phenomena where direct measurement is either impossible or ethically challenging (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In light of the sensitive and often undocumented nature of gender-based violence, especially under authoritarian regimes, this design allows for flexibility, contextual depth, and ethical responsiveness. The approach prioritizes narrative depth over statistical generalizability.

Given the rapid political deterioration in Bangladesh since mid-2024, the study also incorporates a critical case study design, focusing on emblematic instances of rape, murder, and abuse documented by the Bangladesh Mahila Parishad (2025), Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK, 2025), and Human Rights Watch (2025). These cases were selected for their ability to illustrate broader trends in state inaction, ideological violence, and gendered repression.

4.2 Data Sources and Collection Methods Data were gathered from four primary sources:

1. NGO Reports: Monthly and biannual data reports from Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, ASK, Odhikar, and Naripokkho were reviewed. These reports provided numerical data, geographic distribution, victim profiles, and case summaries. Where available, full-text testimonies or incident narratives were included.

2. Media Content: Articles from verified digital portals such as New Dhaka Times, Daily Star, Prothom Alo, and Bangla Tribune were analyzed using a critical media content approach. Special attention was paid to language use, sourcing of stories, representation of victims, and framing of state accountability.

3. Survivor Narratives: A total of 17 anonymized survivor interviews published or collected by human rights NGOs were analyzed using narrative analysis. These accounts were selected for diversity in location, age group, and type of violence experienced. All narratives were cross-referenced with documented reports to ensure reliability.

4. Government and Legal Documents: Select laws (e.g., Digital Security Act), state press releases, and parliamentary records were examined to analyze the state’s response or lack thereof. Judicial rulings and pending case logs related to gender-based violence were also reviewed.

4.3 Sampling Strategy A purposive sampling strategy was employed to select high-salience cases and reports that best illustrate the systemic nature of the problem. Cases were chosen based on severity, visibility, media attention, and whether they implicated state actors or ideological elements. While this limits generalizability, it enhances analytical rigor and thematic saturation (Patton, 2002).

The temporal frame was strictly maintained from January 1 to June 30, 2025. Geographically, the study includes cases from both rural and urban contexts, including Dhaka, Chittagong, Rajshahi, Khulna, and several peripheral districts (e.g., Pabna, Comilla, and Cox’s Bazar).

4.4 Data Analysis Techniques The collected data were subjected to thematic content analysis, guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase model:

-Familiarization with data

-Generating initial codes

-Searching for themes

-Reviewing themes

-Defining and naming themes

-Producing the report

Three key themes emerged from the analysis:

1. State Apathy and Institutional Complicity

2. Religious Justification and Mob Violence

3. Survivor Silencing and Fear of Retribution

These themes were triangulated with theoretical frameworks discussed earlier and verified through multiple sources (media, NGO, legal records) to enhance reliability and validity.

4.5 Ethical Considerations Given the political volatility and personal risks involved in researching GBV under an authoritarian regime, the study adhered to strict ethical standards. Survivor identities were anonymized, and no direct field interviews were conducted to avoid retraumatization and legal threats. All secondary sources were verified for credibility and referenced appropriately.

Moreover, the research maintained non-partisan academic neutrality while holding accountable the structural forces implicated in gender-based oppression. The purpose is not political denunciation but scholarly inquiry grounded in evidence and ethical commitment.

4.6 Limitations of the Study

Several limitations must be acknowledged:
-Inaccessibility to primary data due to censorship and surveillance
-Possible underreporting of GBV incidents due to fear, stigma, or media suppression
-Lack of disaggregated government data by gender, age, and legal outcomes
Despite these constraints, the triangulated data strategy ensures analytical robustness. The study does not claim representativeness but offers critical insights into institutional failure and gendered repression.

APA References (selected for Methodology)

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

Bangladesh Mahila Parishad. (2025). Mid-Year Report on Violence Against Women and Children (January–June). Dhaka.

Human Rights Watch. (2025). Bangladesh Under Siege: Gender Violence and State Complicity. New York.

Ain o Salish Kendra. (2025). Quarterly Monitoring Report: Gender-Based Violence Trends. Dhaka.