To top the list of cities in terms of density of population per square km is an unenviable distinction for Dhaka. Unfortunately, according to the UN Habitat data, said to have been collected from national census offices (analysis being evidently the UN Habitat's), Dhaka is the densest city in the world today. Its population per square km is estimated at 44,500 with a rather distant second, third and fourth in Mumbai, Manila and Singapore!
Dhaka's latest labelling appears to be on the high side, taking into account its density rankings in the recent years. Let's examine the matter up close to determine the margin of error, if any, that may not be ruled out in such a comparative statistical exercise.
The modalities of arriving at a certain figure smack of a notional and to an extent subjective judgment. For instance, it is stated that there is no agreed definition as to the boundaries of a city. "Measuring density of urban agglomerations, including adjacent suburbia and administration of the  city proper, gives a decent comparative picture."Â
By the admission of the ranking agencies, different measures give different results. The UN Demographic Yearbook has data for the "city proper". 'This smaller measurement  makes Manila the world's most densely populated city with centres of Paris, Athens and Barcelona topping European list. New York is the densest city in North America while sprawling Sydney is Australia's.'
According to Wikipedia, in the category of countries, Bangladesh is placed tenth in terms of density of population. There  she is  lumped together with much smaller countries; but density being the criterion for a  comparative analysis, one is appalled by just how many more  are packed per square miles in them vis-à -vis Bangladesh!Â
Â
The following list is self-explanatory:
Country     Area   Density
per sq.mile
Macau   12 sq. mile      55,001
Monaco   0.78  do       48,154
Singapore    278  do        20,194
Hong Kong       427  do        19,208
Gibraltar(UK)     2.6  do         12,624
Bahrain          292  do        5,038
Vatican City      0.17  do        4,709
Malta           122  do        3,504
Bermuda(UK)      20  do        3,310
Bangladesh       55,598 do       2,922
            (census, 2010)
Thus, it would appear that  where our capital city is overcrowded--it will be 20 million by 2020,the country as a whole has a leeway to accommodate more people. This will entail  a population dispersion policy with the strong underpinnings of a rapid, time-bound development of  self-contained growth centres all over the country to hold back people gainfully to their habitats.
Just imagine, we have some 1,700-2,000 people rushing from the rural areas to the capital city on a daily basis  in normal times, leave aside periodic natural calamities! Another dreadful fact we are living with completely insensitive to our surroundings is the daily addition of 150-200 new vehicles on to the city roads. This is horrifically unsustainable  as the road network is itself  crammed within six per cent of the city's land area. New Delhi facing congestion and pollution problems has 12 per cent road space while Dhaka is gasping with a meager six percent road network for the mobility or shall we say, immobility of well over 12-15 million denizens.
The answer lies in what Singapore has done to curb proliferation of cars. It has a strong regulatory mechanismÂ
In the form of selling car numbers on a highly selective
basis with a prohibitive price tag. Of course all this fits into the existence of a mass transit system. The blend has to come through massive private- public  partnership joined in by external funding.
It is understood that the government is seriously thinking of incorporating 'density zoning' in the Detailed Area Plan (DAP) of Rajuk to make Dhaka liveable. 'It aims to reduce the pressure of population in the city by making DAP' pro-people one through correcting its errors.' That the DAP is fraught with errors is common knowledge and with functional complications hemmed in, the document needs contextual revisions to serve any comprehensively useful purpose.Â
But the thrust seems to be towards accepting growing density as a fait accompli. We consider it a flawed approach of being resigned to fate, content with  letting things happen and managing them reactively rather than pro-actively. The bad thing is we are not into prevention; not applying a brake on time for the reversal of an adverse trend into a positive turn-around. This jinx will have to be broken going forward.  Â
 safarihi43@gmail.com
Â