This is India we are talking about. The population density and surrounding encroachment is usually why even small domestic cylinder blast could take lives of 100s.

No, they’re not. Of the 20 largest airports in the US, all but one of them have homes and offices surrounding them. The one that doesn’t is Denver, that’s mostly only because Denver’s airport is relatively new and the development hasn’t reached it yet.

that's actually not true and it's very easy to disprove because SFO is in the top 20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_i....

I'm sure this is an airport most of the people on this site are familiar with but just in case you aren't, it's on reclaimed land in the San Francisco bay.

There’s a massive, incredibly dense neighborhood of houses and offices less than 1000 feet to the south, west, and north of every one of SFOs runways.

SFO is surrounded by numerous highways, office buildings, and residential areas

well yeah but im talking about the part where the planes land not the terminal.

There runway thresholds are closer to the neighborhoods than the entire terminal except a few A terminal gates.

Go look at a satellite view of SFO.

It is 400m from the threshold of 19L/1R to the nearest residential neighborhood at SFO. LGA, which is an incredibly urban airport has the exact same distance from the end of its closest runway to the nearest residential area.

They put airports where there is room to put them. Frequently that means that they are well outside cities since finding space for a few 2 mile runways in the city is difficult.

However, there are plenty of airports in major cities and built up areas (in both developed and developing countries), and I have never heard of avoiding building in areas due to the (remote) possibility of crashes.

Most major airports were established long ago (sometimes centuries ago) in land that used to be remote. Cities eventually expand into the surrounding area.