Mumbai Floods: Aaditya Thackeray, Varsha Gaikwad Slam BJP-BMC Over Civic Collapse
Menu
हिंदी తెలుగు اردو
Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion
Support independent journalism. Donate Now
Video
Mumbai Floods: Aaditya Thackeray, Varsha Gaikwad Slam BJP-BMC Over Civic Collapse
The Wire Staff
9 minutes ago
Questions have also been raised about why there is no elected civic body in Mumbai and why local body polls have been delayed across Maharashtra.
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
Contribute now
Mumbai witnessed severe waterlogging across South, Central and suburban areas despite it being just May. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray and Congress MLA Varsha Gaikwad have slammed the BJP-run Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for complete failure in pre-monsoon preparedness. Questions have also been raised about why there is no elected civic body in Mumbai and why local body polls have been delayed across Maharashtra.
Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
Related News
The Thousands of Wells of Mumbai Serve its People, Birds and Animals
Heavy Rains Lash Mumbai, Administration Issues Red Alert, Urges Citizens to Stay Indoors
Yellow, Black, Blue: How Residents of Mumbai's Govandi Struggle with Dirty Water and an Apathetic BMC
The Redevelopment of Dharavi will Destroy the Livelihoods of Those Who Work in Small Businesses
After Tahawwur Rana's Extradition, Govt Appoints Team of Prosecutors to Conduct 26/11 Trial
Bengaluru Rains Have Returned the Garbage We Carelessly Dumped
Bombay HC Slams State, College For Rustication, Arrest of Student Over Post on Operation Sindoor
The Same Modi Who Chided the UPA For 26/11 is Cracking Down on Those Asking Questions Over Pahalgam
For 10 Hours, Fire Rages in ED Mumbai Office Housing Investigation Documents of High-Profile Cases
View in Desktop Mode
About Us
Contact Us
Support Us
© Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
State to seek DP workaround for redevelopment of Arthur Road Jail
MUMBAI: The plan to redevelop Arthur Road jail, Mumbai's main prison, has inched forward, with the state deciding to urge the civic administration to ease a provision that would force it to surrender a sizable portion of its property. Minister of state for home Yogesh Kadam told officials of his department and the jails department of the city police on Thursday to prepare a plan for a new ground-plus-four storey prison that would accommodate 5,000 prisoners. The present British-era jail has a capacity for 800 inmates although it houses as many as 3,500. The challenge to building a new structure comes from a provision in the city's Development Plan (DP), which mandates that the jail give up a significant portion of its property when it redevelops the prison. The land thus surrendered would add 15 metres to the width of the road outside, converting it into a 35-metre-wide stretch. The portion in question currently houses the jail's staff quarters. 'The government is working on plans to redevelop Arthur Road Jail as well as Byculla Jail, which is for women. For the Arthur Road Jail redevelopment, I have directed officials to submit a fresh proposal with a request for concessions from the provisions in the DP, to construct a ground-plus-four storey structure. We will request the BMC commissioner for the concession,' said Kadam. He has directed officials from the home department and prisons department to visit the Singapore jail before preparing the plan. He has also asked officials to work on plot reservations on 22 acres of land in Mankhurd for the construction of a new jail. A home department official said the new Arthur Road Jail would be built in phases and four temporary barracks would be constructed inside the premises, to accommodate the inmates. Kadam also said the new jail would have three courtrooms. This would save time and money as inmates would not have to be transported for court hearings outside. It would also ease the pressure to provide security to the inmates while transporting them. 'During the trial of Ajmal Kasab, who had led the attack on Mumbai in 2008, a court was set up inside the Arthur Road Jail. Adding two more courtrooms would ease the pressure on the police to provide security and other arrangements to inmates for travel to court,' said Kadam. .
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC directs BMC to consider plea for Eid sacrifice in housing society
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to consider an application for allowing goat sacrifice in a housing society in Ghatkopar on the occasion of Bakrid, which falls on Saturday. The vacation bench of justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a petition filed by Abdul Shaik, a co-operative housing society member who alleged that he was denied permission for the sacrificial ritual this year although he had been allowed to do so during the preceding two years. This was contrary to the BMC's policy, which allows the sacrificial ritual in housing societies when there is no slaughter house available within a one-kilometre radius. 'We have been granted permissions to carry out the sacrifices in our housing society for the past two years, and now suddenly they are refusing us permission. Although people from all faiths live in the society, the majority of the population is Muslim,' advocate Kaif Mujawar, Shaik's lawyer, told the court. Mujawar said though there was a mutton shop at a distance of two kilometres from the housing society, it could only carry out the sacrifice of 25 goats. 'The area has a population of more than 50,000 Muslims. The single mutton shop cannot serve the needs of all the residents,' Mujawar said. The BMC opposed the plea, saying although a policy was in place to allow such slaughter in housing societies, the civic body was under no obligation to grant permissions. 'Assuming that permissions were previously granted, we are trying to enforce better civil sense starting this year,' the BMC's counsel told the court. Allowing such slaughter would create problems in waste management, he added. The BMC's counsel also told the court that there were at least three municipal slaughter houses in N ward, where the housing society was located. These slaughter houses were capable of handling the needs of the community and therefore there was no need to entertain the plea, he said. After hearing both sides, the court directed the BMC to consider the application. HT reached out to the BMC for comments, but did not get any response. Plea for mass Namaz at August Kranti Maidan The vacation bench on Friday also directed the state government to decide on a representation seeking permission to perform namaz during Bakrid at the August Kranti Maidan. The court asked social worker Umer Abdul Jabbar Gopalani to approach the government's social and cultural affairs department to seek permission to hold mass prayers at the ground. Gopalani had moved the high court after the Gamdevi police refused permission for mass namaz on the occasion of Bakrid on Saturday, claiming it could cause traffic snarls and law and order issues. Gopalani, however, claimed that the local Muslim community had been using the ground to perform mass namaz during Eid for the past 50 years, and there had never been any law and order situation or traffic problem.
The Wire
10 minutes ago
- The Wire
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
