FRANCE AND INDIA FACE A COMMON DILEMMA OVER POLICE FORCE AGAINST YOUNG PROTESTERS
October 8, 2026
France and India are confronting a similar and increasingly contentious question over the use of force against student protesters, as injuries during demonstrations in both countries have triggered scrutiny over whether so-called non-lethal crowd-control weapons can cause excessive and permanent harm.
In France, nationwide protests by high school students over overcrowded classrooms, deteriorating school infrastructure and teacher shortages have produced thousands of arrests and dozens of injuries. The controversy intensified after a 15-year-old boy lost his hand during a clash in the northern city of Lens, with a stun grenade suspected of causing the injury.
French interior minister Laurent Nunez subsequently announced that the particular type of stun grenade would no longer be used against high school protesters until the circumstances surrounding the incident were clarified. Another 14-year-old boy suffered a shattered jaw and serious dental injuries after a tear-gas grenade was fired during a protest near Paris, leading to an investigation of the police officer involved.
The French authorities have defended the broader police response by arguing that officers have had to intervene when demonstrations became violent. However, the injuries have intensified debate over the meaning of “less lethal” weapons when their use can result in mutilation, permanent disability or other serious injuries.
A comparable debate has emerged in India following the July protest in Delhi led by the Cockroach Janta Party. Several protesters reported serious injuries during the confrontation with security forces, including 19-year-old Sahil Lochab, who suffered severe damage to his right eye.
Questions also arose over the alleged use of pellet-firing anti-riot weapons. While police had earlier denied that pellet guns were used, a general diary entry at the Parliament Street police station reportedly recorded two rounds fired from anti-riot guns by Rapid Action Force personnel, along with tear-smoke grenades and other crowd-control ammunition.
The Delhi episode subsequently reached the Supreme Court, which directed its high-powered committee to prioritise its inquiry into the alleged use of pellet guns and injuries suffered by protesters.
The two situations involve different weapons and different political circumstances, but they raise the same fundamental question: how much force is proportionate when authorities confront demonstrations involving young people? France’s decision to suspend a particular stun grenade and India’s continuing scrutiny of pellet-gun use have placed the risks associated with crowd-control weapons firmly at the centre of that debate.
