Use of lethal weapons to kill protesters by Bangladesh police: A discussion analyzing 253 deaths of July 24 revolution

Dialogues in health Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-08 DOI:10.1016/j.dialog.2026.100277
Md Abu Bakkar Siddik , Md Syful Islam , Sheikh Muzzammil Hussen , Md. Khalid Syfullah
{"title":"Use of lethal weapons to kill protesters by Bangladesh police: A discussion analyzing 253 deaths of July 24 revolution","authors":"Md Abu Bakkar Siddik ,&nbsp;Md Syful Islam ,&nbsp;Sheikh Muzzammil Hussen ,&nbsp;Md. Khalid Syfullah","doi":"10.1016/j.dialog.2026.100277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The use of lethal force by law enforcement against protesters is a critical issue in Bangladesh, where police actions during the July 24 Revolution resulted in more than a thousand recorded deaths. This study analyses the circumstances, demographics, and geographic distribution of these fatalities through a quantitative content analysis of national newspaper reports of 253 deaths, verified through a multi-step validation process to reduce bias. The findings reveal that young adults aged 18 to 29 accounted for 58.1% of victims, underscoring the historical role of youth in political mobilization. Lethal bullets were responsible for 78.66% of deaths, with most fatalities occurring on the spot (77.47%) and predominantly at demonstration sites (75.89%). The chest (46.64%) and head (29.25%) were the most frequently targeted areas, suggesting intentional use of lethal force inconsistent with international norms on proportionality and necessity. These patterns illustrate how the securitization of dissent discursively frames protesters as threats, legitimizing violent repression consistent with broader theories of state violence. In doing so, the findings extend global debates on protest policing by showing how securitization discursively legitimized the lethal targeting of youth protesters in a South Asian context. By situating Bangladesh within South Asian and global debates on protest policing, the study contributes to understanding how state violence undermines democratic participation and public health. The analysis aligns with the World Health Organization's objectives on reducing violence and promoting human rights. While limited by reliance on media reports and cross-sectional data, the findings highlight the need for future research on long-term impacts and for context-specific reforms in accountability, training, and oversight.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72803,"journal":{"name":"Dialogues in health","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100277"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogues in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277265332600002X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of lethal force by law enforcement against protesters is a critical issue in Bangladesh, where police actions during the July 24 Revolution resulted in more than a thousand recorded deaths. This study analyses the circumstances, demographics, and geographic distribution of these fatalities through a quantitative content analysis of national newspaper reports of 253 deaths, verified through a multi-step validation process to reduce bias. The findings reveal that young adults aged 18 to 29 accounted for 58.1% of victims, underscoring the historical role of youth in political mobilization. Lethal bullets were responsible for 78.66% of deaths, with most fatalities occurring on the spot (77.47%) and predominantly at demonstration sites (75.89%). The chest (46.64%) and head (29.25%) were the most frequently targeted areas, suggesting intentional use of lethal force inconsistent with international norms on proportionality and necessity. These patterns illustrate how the securitization of dissent discursively frames protesters as threats, legitimizing violent repression consistent with broader theories of state violence. In doing so, the findings extend global debates on protest policing by showing how securitization discursively legitimized the lethal targeting of youth protesters in a South Asian context. By situating Bangladesh within South Asian and global debates on protest policing, the study contributes to understanding how state violence undermines democratic participation and public health. The analysis aligns with the World Health Organization's objectives on reducing violence and promoting human rights. While limited by reliance on media reports and cross-sectional data, the findings highlight the need for future research on long-term impacts and for context-specific reforms in accountability, training, and oversight.
孟加拉国警察使用致命武器杀害抗议者:对7月24日革命253人死亡的分析
执法部门对抗议者使用致命武力是孟加拉国的一个关键问题,在7月24日革命期间,警方的行动导致有记录的一千多人死亡。本研究通过对253例死亡的全国性报纸报道进行定量内容分析,分析了这些死亡的环境、人口统计和地理分布,并通过多步骤验证过程进行验证,以减少偏见。调查结果显示,18岁至29岁的年轻人占受害者的58.1%,强调了青年在政治动员中的历史作用。78.66%的死亡是致命子弹造成的,其中当场死亡最多(77.47%),主要发生在示威场所(75.89%)。胸部(46.64%)和头部(29.25%)是最常见的目标区域,表明故意使用致命武力不符合国际标准的比例和必要性。这些模式说明了异议的证券化如何在话语上将抗议者塑造成威胁,使暴力镇压合法化,与更广泛的国家暴力理论相一致。在此过程中,研究结果通过展示证券化如何在南亚背景下使青年抗议者的致命目标合法化,扩展了关于抗议警察的全球辩论。通过将孟加拉国置于南亚和全球关于抗议警务的辩论中,该研究有助于理解国家暴力如何破坏民主参与和公共卫生。这一分析符合世界卫生组织关于减少暴力和促进人权的目标。虽然受限于对媒体报道和横断面数据的依赖,但研究结果强调,未来有必要对长期影响进行研究,并在问责制、培训和监督方面进行因地制革的改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dialogues in health
Dialogues in health Public Health and Health Policy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
134 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书