The Fire-Safety Crisis Is Hiding in Plain Sight, Why India’s Cities Are Tinderboxes Waiting to Ignite
In the last few months, incidents of fire in buildings functioning as coaching institutes, hotels, and similar establishments have attracted wider public attention. The widely reported incidents are typically those that result in loss of human lives. However, many such incidents largely escape public scrutiny because they do not lead to fatalities. The issue is much larger than it appears. The fires that make headlines are only the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface lies a chronic, systemic failure of urban governance, building regulation, and public awareness. The crisis is hiding in plain sight.
If the pattern of these incidents is studied, certain facts stand out. First, most have occurred in buildings with occupancy levels and usage patterns that exceed those for which they were originally designed. Preliminary reports suggest the building in Lucknow, gutted by fire on Monday, may have been sanctioned for residential use, while it was accommodating commercial and other activities. In essence, there may not be anything wrong with this, as most master plans and building by-laws permit mixed-use development if such buildings comply with fire safety regulations. The problem is that they rarely do.
Second, many of these buildings are in congested urban areas like urban villages, unauthorised colonies, and Tier-II and Tier-III cities. Again, there is nothing wrong with these areas, as they are products of the evolution of urban development. The problem lies in the fact that high-footfall activities are flourishing where access roads are less than six metres wide and often do not allow the entry of fire tenders. A building may have the best fire-fighting equipment in the world, but if a fire engine cannot reach it, the equipment is useless.
Third, there is a widespread lack of awareness among owners and disregard among administrative agencies when it comes to enforcing emergency-response measures and conducting regular safety audits. Owners often do not know what the fire-safety regulations are. Even if they do, they often choose to ignore them because compliance is expensive and enforcement is weak. Administrative agencies, meanwhile, are often under-resourced and overstretched. They conduct inspections only when a complaint is filed, and they rarely follow up to ensure that violations have been corrected.
In recent years, as part of the government’s “ease of doing business” initiative, compliance requirements for smaller-occupancy buildings have been relaxed. While this has simplified approvals, applicants often fail to realise that they remain responsible for ensuring their buildings comply with the fire-safety provisions of the National Building Code. These include minimum access widths, refuge areas, fire staircases, and installing fire-safety equipment. The “ease of doing business” should not mean “ease of ignoring safety.”
The real-estate bubble has resulted in a multifold increase in property prices. Residences, workplaces, and shops have largely become unaffordable for the middle-, lower-middle and poor sections of society. They are often forced to move into urban villages and unauthorised colonies. Development authorities and planning agencies have been quick to call these out as illegal, but have failed miserably to increase the supply of affordable units. They have also failed to preempt the demand and at least ensure such areas have the necessary infrastructure. Bulldozing them is not a solution. They require a more balanced infrastructure strategy.
This brings us to a critical aspect of building operations and maintenance. There appears to be a complete lack of awareness regarding the importance and application of fire-safety norms, particularly in smaller buildings. Since the Uphaar Cinema incident, fire safety approvals and enforcement mechanisms for large-occupancy buildings like theatres, colleges, office complexes, and similar establishments have become stringent. This is reflected in the fact that fire incidents in such buildings are now generally the result of disasters, whether natural or caused by electrical malfunctions. In smaller buildings, owners, residents, visitors, and even administrative officials often remain unaware of basic fire-safety and emergency response measures. Fire drills are rarely conducted in such buildings. Many do not even have fire extinguishers. Equally concerning is the apparent lack of effort to address these shortcomings.
The Uphaar Cinema fire of 1997, which killed 59 people, was a watershed moment. It led to a tightening of fire-safety regulations for large public buildings. But it did not lead to a similar tightening for smaller buildings. The assumption seems to be that smaller buildings are less risky. This is a dangerous assumption. A fire in a small building can still kill multiple people, especially if the building is overcrowded, the exits are inadequate, and the fire spreads quickly.
The solution is not more regulation; India already has plenty of regulation. The National Building Code is comprehensive. The problem is enforcement. The state is not doing its job. The municipalities are not doing their job. The fire services are not doing their job. The owners are not doing their job. Everyone is passing the buck, and people are dying.
The writer hesitantly arrives at a conclusion: “We are quick to run sealing drives, bulldoze areas we feel are illegally built or give money to the relatives of people who die. But we have failed to take a pause, assess our mistakes and realise that response to such incidents cannot be a one-time affair.” The response cannot be a one-time affair. It must be a continuous effort. It must involve regular inspections, strict enforcement, public awareness campaigns, and investment in infrastructure. It must involve a recognition that fire safety is not an optional extra; it is a fundamental requirement of urban life.
India’s cities are growing at an unprecedented rate. Millions of people are moving into urban areas every year. They are living in cramped, poorly constructed, and poorly maintained buildings. The fire-safety crisis is not going away. It is getting worse. The fires that make headlines are only the beginning. If the government does not act, the next fire will be bigger, and the loss of life will be greater. The time to act is now.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What are the three key patterns that emerge from studying fire incidents in buildings?
A1: First, most fires occur in buildings with occupancy levels and usage patterns exceeding their original design. Second, many are in congested urban areas with access roads too narrow for fire tenders. Third, there is widespread lack of awareness among owners and disregard among administrative agencies for enforcing fire-safety measures.
Q2: How has the “ease of doing business” initiative affected fire safety?
A2: Compliance requirements for smaller-occupancy buildings have been relaxed, simplifying approvals. However, applicants often fail to realise they remain responsible for ensuring their buildings comply with fire-safety provisions of the National Building Code, including access widths, refuge areas, fire staircases, and equipment installation.
Q3: What role does the real-estate bubble play in the fire-safety crisis?
A3: The real-estate bubble has made property unaffordable for middle- and lower-income groups, forcing them into urban villages and unauthorised colonies where infrastructure is inadequate. Development authorities have failed to increase affordable housing supply or ensure these areas have proper infrastructure.
Q4: How did the Uphaar Cinema incident change fire-safety enforcement?
A4: The Uphaar Cinema fire in 1997, which killed 59 people, led to stringent fire safety approvals and enforcement for large-occupancy buildings like theatres, colleges, and office complexes. However, similar vigilance has not been extended to smaller buildings, where awareness remains low.
Q5: What does the article suggest is the root cause of recurring fire tragedies?
A5: The root cause is a failure to treat fire safety as a continuous effort. Instead, responses are reactive—sealing drives, bulldozing, or giving compensation—without addressing systemic issues. The author argues that India needs regular inspections, strict enforcement, public awareness, and infrastructure investment to prevent future tragedies.
