The recent decision by the Union government to rollback India's seismic zonation map and revised earthquake design code has sparked concern among seismologists and geologists. This move, in my opinion, represents a significant setback for the country's disaster preparedness, particularly in regions like the Himalayan arc, which are prone to devastating earthquakes. The new code, introduced in November 2025 by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), was a bold step forward in addressing the country's seismic risks. It placed the entire Himalayan arc under Zone VI, the highest seismic risk category, acknowledging the persistent tectonic threat along the Indo-Eurasian plate boundary. This was a crucial recognition of the potential for magnitude eight or larger quakes in the region, as repeatedly warned by scientists.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the extent of India's seismic risk. Nearly 59% of the country's landmass and nearly 80% of its population fall under moderate to very high seismic hazard zones. This means that a significant portion of the population is vulnerable to earthquakes, and the potential for widespread destruction is high. The proposed revisions to the code were a major step forward in improving the country's preparedness, aiming to strengthen the seismic design framework and better protect the built environment.
However, the rollback of the code raises a deeper question: why was this decision made? The scientific community had accumulated a wealth of knowledge about earthquakes and their impact on India, and the new code was a reflection of this understanding. The withdrawal of the code, in my opinion, suggests a lack of trust in scientific expertise and a failure to recognize the importance of evidence-based decision-making. It also implies a reluctance to embrace innovative solutions and a potential return to outdated practices.
One thing that immediately stands out is the impact of this decision on construction practices and ongoing infrastructure projects. The revised code introduced stronger safety measures, including improved design spectra, a 10-30% increase in base shear requirements, stricter rules for structural irregularities, and more rigorous geotechnical and dynamic analyses. These changes aimed to promote performance-based engineering, ensuring that buildings were designed not only to survive shaking but also to minimize collapse risks and economic losses during large quakes. The rollback of the code means that these important safety measures will not be implemented, leaving the country more vulnerable to the devastating effects of earthquakes.
In my opinion, this decision is a missed opportunity to strengthen India's disaster resilience. It represents a step backward in the country's efforts to prepare for and mitigate the impact of earthquakes. The scientific community has repeatedly warned of the potential for devastating quakes in the Himalayan region, and the new code was a crucial step in addressing this risk. The rollback of the code suggests a failure to recognize the importance of scientific expertise and a reluctance to embrace innovative solutions. It also implies a potential return to outdated practices, leaving the country more vulnerable to the devastating effects of earthquakes.
What many people don't realize is the broader implications of this decision. The rollback of the code not only affects the country's preparedness for earthquakes but also has significant economic and social consequences. The construction industry is a major contributor to the country's GDP, and the failure to implement important safety measures will have a ripple effect on the entire economy. It will also impact the lives of millions of people who live in areas prone to earthquakes, leaving them more vulnerable to the devastating effects of these natural disasters.
If you take a step back and think about it, the rollback of the code represents a failure to recognize the importance of scientific expertise and evidence-based decision-making. It also suggests a reluctance to embrace innovative solutions and a potential return to outdated practices. This decision has significant implications for the country's disaster preparedness, economic stability, and social welfare. It is a setback for India's efforts to build a more resilient and sustainable future, and it highlights the need for a more proactive and evidence-based approach to decision-making in the face of natural disasters.
