When any earthquake shakes Dhaka, many residents immediately ask a familiar question: Could a larger one be coming? It is an understandable reaction. But it is also the wrong policy question. Bangladesh cannot predict earthquakes with reliable precision. What it can do, and what it has not done enough of, is prepare.
Earlier in June, tremors from a 5.6-magnitude earthquake originating in Bhutan were felt in Dhaka and other parts of Bangladesh, while another 4.5-magnitude tremor was felt on June 11. Each event created anxiety. But anxiety is not preparedness.
The real question for Bangladesh is not whether the next earthquake will come tomorrow, next month, or years from now. The real question is: If a stronger earthquake occurs, are we ready?
The answer is uncomfortable. Bangladesh is more aware of earthquake risk than before, but awareness has not yet translated into preparedness at the required scale. Dhaka is especially vulnerable not only because of its geology but also because of its density, construction quality, narrow roads, limited open spaces, and weak enforcement of building safety rules.
The danger is not just the shaking. It is what the shaking exposes. In Dhaka, a major earthquake would not only threaten lives but also disrupt hospitals, factories, banking, transport, education, and public services, creating losses that could take years to recover from.
It is now well known that a moderate earthquake in a densely populated city can trigger cascading failures. A cracked building can block a narrow road. A damaged staircase can trap residents. Falling railings, rooftop structures, glass panels, signboards, water tanks, and construction materials can injure people. Hospitals can face sudden pressure. Mobile networks can become overloaded. Panic can turn into stampedes.
During the November 2025 Narsingdi earthquake, Reuters reported deaths from falling building debris and injuries linked to panic and damage to structures in Dhaka.
This is why earthquake preparedness should no longer be treated as a distant engineering issue. It is an everyday governance issue.
Bangladesh cannot inspect every building in Dhaka overnight. Nor should it pretend that a single campaign can solve decades of unsafe construction. What it can do is begin with the places where failure would cause the greatest loss of life: Schools, hospitals, shopping centres, old apartment blocks, garment factories, dormitories, coaching centres, and crowded public buildings.
Identifying risky buildings is only the beginning. The harder question is what happens next. Are residents informed? Are owners required to act? Are the most dangerous buildings restricted or evacuated? Are repairs monitored? Are demolition orders enforced where necessary? Without action, risk assessments become another form of paperwork.
One practical step would be to create a public building-safety database. Every major building in Dhaka should eventually have a visible status: Assessed, not assessed, needs repair, high risk, or unsafe.
This could begin with public buildings and high-occupancy private buildings. A simple digital platform would allow residents, students, workers, and tenants to know whether the structures they use have been checked. Transparency would also create pressure on owners and authorities to act.
Technology can help, but only if it is used for practical preparedness rather than unrealistic promises. Bangladesh Meteorological Department already maintains seismic monitoring and earthquake information systems.
That system should be connected more effectively to public communication. A verified earthquake information channel should quickly publish magnitude, epicenter, safety instructions, and aftershock guidance.
This would reduce rumors and panic. Authorities should also work with telecom operators to develop cell-broadcast emergency alerts, so that people in affected areas receive short, verified instructions during major events.
This is not futuristic. Bangladesh already uses mobile technology at a national scale for banking, public messaging, and disaster communication. The missing step is integrating earthquake response into that system.
Low-cost seismic monitoring should also be expanded. BUET-linked researchers have already shown that local low-cost seismic networks can provide real-time earthquake monitoring and station data for Bangladesh.
Such networks could be deployed in universities, fire stations, schools, hospitals, and public buildings. They would not replace national monitoring, but they could improve coverage, support research, and help authorities better understand local ground motion.
Artificial intelligence can also help, but it should be used carefully. AI should not be sold as earthquake prediction. That would mislead the public. Its best use is administrative: Ranking buildings for inspection based on age, height, location, occupancy, construction type, soil conditions, visible damage, and previous approval records.
An AI-assisted risk-ranking tool could help Rajuk and city authorities decide which buildings should be inspected first, instead of waiting for complaints or political pressure.
Preparedness also has to become visible in daily life. Schools, universities, offices, factories, hospitals, and shopping malls should conduct earthquake drills every few months. People should know when to drop, cover, and hold on, when not to rush down stairs, where to assemble, and how to help children, older adults, and persons with disabilities. Preparedness reduces panic, and panic is itself a risk multiplier.
Local response capacity is just as important. In a major earthquake, professional responders will not reach every neighborhood immediately. The first responders will be neighbors, security guards, shopkeepers, students, mosque committees, building caretakers, and local volunteers. Dhaka has already seen earthquake preparedness projects involving community and volunteer training in selected wards.
This model should be expanded. Every ward should have trained volunteers, basic rescue equipment, first-aid capacity, a list of vulnerable buildings, and mapped open spaces. Local preparedness matters because the first hour after a disaster is often decisive.
None of this will matter enough if unsafe construction continues. Retrofitting older buildings is expensive and difficult. But allowing unsafe new buildings to be constructed today creates tomorrow's disaster.
Every new approval should require proper soil testing, structural design, engineer accountability, and digital records. The country cannot undo all past mistakes quickly, but it can stop adding new ones.
The recent tremors should not lead to panic. They should lead to discipline. Bangladesh does not need to become Japan overnight. It does not need the most expensive technology in the world. It needs a practical preparedness agenda: Inspect the highest-risk buildings first, inform the public, use mobile alerts, expand low-cost monitoring, train local responders, map safe spaces, and enforce construction rules.
The next earthquake may come tomorrow, next month, or years from now. We cannot control that. What we can control is whether known vulnerabilities remain untouched.
Earthquakes are unavoidable. Disaster is not.
Shaikh Afnan Birahim is a writer and analyst.
