On the 24th of April, 2013, workers reported for duty at several garment factories inside
the Rana Plaza building in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Many of them were nervous about coming in to work – and reasonably so – the day
before cracks had been discovered on the lower floors, and the building had been evacuated.
That morning, however, they were assured that their workplace was entirely safe… when,
in reality, this could not have been further from the truth.
The manufacture of clothing is a big industry in Bangladesh, accounting for almost three-quarters
of the country’s economy.
Millions of people work in garment factories all over the country, including a large number
of young women and girls.
Though the work is, in most cases, difficult and not very well-paid, it is nonetheless
a vital lifeline for the workers who depend on it.
Rana Plaza was a building situated in Dhaka in Bangladesh.
Built in 2006, it was initially a four-storey building, constructed on the site of a filled-in
pond.
At the time, the owner Sohel Rana, was a businessman who was also increasingly involved in local
politics.
His political connections allowed him to quickly obtain permission to add an extra floor.
Emboldened by this, he did not seek a permit at all before adding another three floors
on top of this over the course of several years.
This doubled the original height of Rana Plaza… and by 2013, work was underway to add a ninth
floor to the now-towering edifice.
The plaza had been designed as a commercial building – a space for retail and business
use.
And, indeed, the lower floors were mostly occupied by various shops and a bank.
The upper floors, however, were used for industrial purposes; they were shared by several different
garment factories.
These factories collectively employed around 5,000 people to make clothes for export to
other countries, including the clothing lines of many well-known global brands.
The day before the disaster, a local TV channel visited the businesses on the ground floor,
and noticed numerous cracks in the walls.
The alarm was raised and the building was evacuated pending investigation by an engineer.
Employees of the bank and the retail stores were told to stay home from work the next
day as a precaution.
Workers in the garment factories on the upper floors, however, received a different message.
They should come to work as normal the next day.
The cracks had been inspected, they were told, and amounted only to flaking plaster – cosmetic
damage only.
The building was safe.
Sohel Rana, the owner of the entire building, had told factory managers personally that
there was no reason for caution.
Some workers were already uncertain about the structural soundness of the building.
Those who had worked there for any time at all had noted the building swaying or shuddering
when the generators on the top floor were switched on.
This combined with the news of the cracks in the lower floors created some serious doubts.
Nonetheless, workers were under a lot of pressure to go into work.
Their jobs were a vital part of their livelihood, and the managers at some factories threatened
to fire workers or dock them a month’s pay if they failed to come into work the next
day.
And so, on the 24th of April, most workers went to their posts as normal, and began a
day’s hard work.
At around 8:45am there was a power cut, prompting workers to start the diesel generators on
the upper floor of the building.
As the generators powered up the building shuddered, just as it often did when the generators
were used.
This time, however, the shudder was followed by a series of loud bangs and lurching movements.
Realising what was about to happen, workers surged towards the few available exits…
but before any could escape a large portion of Rana Plaza collapsed.
The rear of the building failed completely, with eight floors pancaking down on top of
one another.
The collapse also brought down an adjacent three-storey building.
The first people on scene were local residents and passersby.
As soon as the rubble had settled, they began to dig for survivors using their bare hands.
Within hours, the Bangladeshi army and emergency services were on site to begin a long and
painstaking rescue effort.
Assistance from experienced outside agencies was offered, but turned down by the government
of Bangladesh, who asserted that their own emergency services were skilled and well-equipped
enough to handle the disaster.
As the rescue effort went on, however, some observers alleged that this was not the case
at all: rescuers were seen wearing sandals and working without protective equipment.
In one case a fire began in the rubble, when sparks from a piece of cutting equipment ignited
fabric in the collapsed building.
The blaze put the rescue effort on hold for several hours, injured four firefighters,
and killed a survivor they had spent several hours trying to extricate.
Despite this, assistance from the urban search and rescue unit of the United Nations was
declined, and the rescue proceeded under the jurisdiction of local emergency services.
Survivors were pulled from the rubble over the course of several days… but so were
many, many bodies.
In total the disaster took the lives of 1,134 people, and injured more than 2,500 others,
many of them seriously.
An investigation revealed that several issues had contributed to the collapse.
The fact that the building had been constructed on a filled-in pond meant that the foundations
were weak.
The extra floors added without a permit had not had sufficient support.
The use of heavy machinery in a building that had been designed for commercial not industrial
use had resulted in excess load and vibrations that had weakened the structure over time.
Since the owner had expanded the building without permits or permission, these glaring
issues had been missed by authorities.
Scenes of survivors and bodies being removed from the rubble were broadcast around the
world, where they had a profound impact.
This impact was magnified by the fact that viewers in some western countries recognised
the brands that workers had been manufacturing clothing for: brands like Benneton, Bonmarche,
Joe Fresh, Matalan, Zara, Monsoon, Accessorise, Primark and Walmart.
Disturbing details emerged – including how little workers were paid, the poor working
conditions before the collapse, and the fact that the rapid turnaround demanded by these
familiar companies had added to the pressure to get workers back into the unstable factories.
The response of these brands and retailers was mixed.
Local Non-Governmental Organisations and workers rights groups drafted a legally-binding agreement
that would set minimum standards for safety in garment factories in Bangladesh.
Many brands and retailers quickly signed up… but some refused, instead making up their
own less financially onerous guidelines.
Around 30 large, global companies had been using the Rana Plaza factories to manufacture
their stock, but of these only seven agreed to contribute financially towards the compensation
to be paid to victims.
This compensation was the cause of unrest in the days and months following the disaster.
Some survivors were denied any financial help, and the compensation paid to others was relatively
minimal, especially considering that the collapse of the factory left them without a breadwinner
in their family.
Some companies insisted on a DNA test to link claimants to someone who had been found dead
in the building before a payout could be made.
Garment workers staged several protests over these and other issues, some of which descended
into riots.
In one instance police fired into the air to force protestors to disperse, and in another
rubber bullets and tear gas were deployed.
While curbing disorder, police were also seeking Sohel Rana, the owner of the building.
After a few days he was arrested near the Indian border (where it appeared he had been
trying to leave the country) and returned to Dhaka by helicopter.
Given the considerable anger directed at him, he was given a helmet and bulletproof vest
to wear as he was taken to court to answer questions about the disaster.
It was generally considered that he bore most responsibility for the loss of life – as
it had been he who pressed ahead with building work without obtaining permits, he who assured
people the building was safe after the cracks were found, and he who had constructed Rana
Plaza on a swampy piece of reclaimed land in the first place.
While more than a dozen other people involved in the construction and management of Rana
Plaza were arrested, Sohel Rana was the only one to remain in custody.
Several years were spent serving out a sentence for corruption, but even when this had been
served, he was not released, as police were pursuing multiple charges against him.
As of 2022 he remained in jail, awaiting the outcome of the legal process.
In the most extreme scenario, he could face the death penalty.
The site where Rana Plaza once stood was eventually cleared, and remains empty to this day.
The only memorial is the one installed unofficially by the Workers Party of Bangladesh.
The collapse of Rana Plaza is not by any means the last or only disaster to affect the garment
industry in Bangladesh, but it is an extremely prominent one, which left lasting scars on
the community.
These accidents are often referred to, quite simply, as the high cost of cheap fashion.