Al Jamal Mustafa Shindaini & Jannatul Ferdous Ety :
Four earthquakes were felt in different districts of the country, including Dhaka, in 31 hours lastweek. Though the tremors lasted for a few seconds and the intensity was moderate, the panic was high.
According to various media reports, the recent earthquakes have claimed several lives in different parts of the country, injured many others, and forced thousands of people to leave their homes and take to the streets.
We also have experienced this previously. The shaking that the 2015 Nepal earthquake caused in Dhaka’s buildings was a real test of the fragility of the country’s capital city.
At that time, cracks were seen in a significant number of buildings in the capital, as reported in several newspapers.
But the important question remains, was the damage caused by the earthquake really a natural disaster, or due to our lack of social, political, and practical preparedness?
From a sociological standpoint, this distinction between a “natural hazard” and a “social disaster” is essential. Earthquakes may originate beneath the earth, but the scale of destruction always reflects the choices, priorities, and power relations embedded in society.
Although earthquakes are natural phenomena, the damage is always the result of socially constructed structures.
During geomorphic perturbations, the occurrence of death and destruction is enhanced by human induced environmental setups, which include urban planning, building standards, administrative weaknesses, and lack of public awareness.
The term ‘disaster’ is often adopted in relation to natural events; however, it occurs when society loses its ability to survive in the face of a threat.
The major triggers of significant crises are notearthquakes, but along duration of unequal developments, institutional irresponsibility, corruption and mismanagement.
Sociologists argue that societies produce their own vulnerabilities over time, through decisions about where people live, how infrastructure is built, and whose safety is prioritized.
Dhaka is no exception; its current risks are the cumulative outcome of structural neglect and unequal access to secure living conditions.
The history of urban sociology has consistently established that when urbanization is hastened, and market forces are largely guided by the powerful, and not holistic public-based designs, it gives rise to concentrated areas of risk.
This trend can be observed in the growth of Dhaka- full of expansion without any governance and development without sufficient safety initiatives.
Dhaka is one of the fastest growing cities in the world. According to the UN’s World Urbanization Prospects 2025 report, Dhaka is the second largest city by population in the world with an estimated population of 36.6 million. But this growth seems to be waiting to collapse under its own weight.
Despite repeated warnings from the government, researchers and international organizations, the capital is still a reflection of an unplanned city. According to a 2020 report by TIB, about 70 percent of buildings in Dhaka were built without complying with building codes, moreover, according to an editorial in Prothom Alo on November 23, the rate is even higher, about 95%.
According to a joint survey by the Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP) and JICA, a magnitude 7 earthquake in Dhaka could collapse about 72,000 buildings and damage 135,000, putting the lives of millions of people at risk.
These are certainly possible figures, but they are enough to understand the depth of the risk.
These numbers are terrifying. But they point to the failures of our city’s daily management. Who is constructing buildings, where and how, what design is being used, how strong the foundation is, these questions often remain unanswered.
‘There are rules, but they are not enforced’. This known reality is making Dhaka’s earthquake risk even more dangerous.
This failure also reflects what sociologists call “institutional vulnerability”when weak institutions expose people to preventable harm. In Dhaka, the crisis is not the absence of laws but the absence of enforcement.
The issue of economic inequality has a considerable impact on risk distribution.
The residential density is generally high in the low-class and low-middle-class areas of the capital, with frequent breaches of construction regulations, in various forms of illegally added floor plans, narrow aisles, and the use of poor-quality building materials; all these factors increase the possible harm that could be caused by an earthquake.
On the other hand, the upper-class areas are relatively spacious, well-planned, and of good construction quality, although supervision is also weak there. But the severity of the damage will certainly vary by class.
In sociology, what is called ‘unequal distribution of risk’ which can be a living example of the Dhaka’s earthquake situation.
The poor do not just face more danger; they are structurally placed into that danger by housing markets, political neglect, and economic compulsion. Thus, earthquake vulnerability becomes a mirror of social inequality.
Another big problem is our lack of socio-psychological preparation. Earthquake-related risk drills in schools and colleges are very inadequate. Safety practices are almost non-existent at work.
There is no culture in the family to teach children or other members what to do during an earthquake. We are afraid, but we are not prepared.
As a result, people run out of the office even at the slightest shaking, some get injured while jumping down the stairs without looking, some wake up restless in fear.
Recently, a few students were seen jumping down from the halls of Dhaka University and getting injured.
These are not just personal matters but overall social behavior. The correct flow of information is also important here. Spreading rumors on social media after an earthquake, sharing scary news increase panic, not preparation.
This crisis has become more pronounced in the era of artificial intelligence, as evidenced by the recent earthquake. In this case, although the dissemination of scientific information in the media has increased, it is still not enough.
Solution is difficult but not impossible. First of all, strict supervision is necessary. There should be a system of real punishment instead of fines if there are irregularities in building construction. Transparency in development should be ensured through participatory urban planning by citizens.
Earthquake preparedness should be made mandatory in the education system for children. Exercises should be held at least twice a year in schools, colleges, offices, markets – everywhere.
The media and social media should be given more emphasis on providing information-based content, and fact-checking institutions should be more active at these critical times. And above all, urban development should be prioritized by taking political-economic interests out of the equation and prioritizing citizen safety.
Creating a safer Dhaka requires more than engineering, it requires social reform: accountable governance, empowered communities, and a culture that values prevention over reaction.
The exact time when an earthquake can occur is unpredictable. However, the number of deaths, the number of structures which will collapse, and the time spent on rescue operations all depend absolutely on the existing social, economic, and political systems. Although it is impossible to avoid tectonic tremors, the extent of the damage is entirely in our hands.
The recent earthquake should remind us once again that the country is shaking, however, is our desire to prepare awakening right? Ultimately, the real question is not when the earth will shake, but whether society chooses to reduce the vulnerabilities it has created. That is the core sociological lesson behind every disaster.
(Authors Al Jamal Mustafa Shindaini is Provost & Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP) & Jannatul Ferdous Ety , a MSS Student, Dept of Sociology, BUP.)
