Peer-reviewed article
Use of lethal weapons to kill protesters by Bangladesh police: A discussion analyzing 253 deaths of July 24 revolution.
Siddik MAB, Islam MS, Hussen SM, Syfullah MK ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view ·Key points
Limitations
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.