Bowring Hospital wall collapse: 7 dead, probe ordered after heavy rains

The state government announced that the family of each of the seven dead will receive an ex‑gratia payment of ₹5 lakh.

Shivajinagar, Bengaluru – At least seven people were killed and several others injured when a boundary wall near Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital in central Bengaluru collapsed on Wednesday evening. The wall fell during heavy rain and strong winds, trapping people under the rubble on a busy roadside.

Eyewitnesses said that many street vendors and passersby had gathered under plastic sheets near the hospital wall to save themselves from the rain. Without any warning, the old wall suddenly cracked and came down on them. Among the dead were small vendors, bystanders, and at least two or three children.

Social Activist Jameel Ahmed Milansaar visited the spot and spoke with eyewitnesses. They told him that the wall had already shown cracks and some people had complained about it earlier, but no proper repair was done.

Rescue teams, including firefighters and medical staff, rushed to the scene. They worked through the night to clear the debris and pull out the trapped people. Seven injured persons were taken to nearby hospitals; most are reported to be out of danger.

Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah visited the area on Thursday and ordered a detailed inquiry. He said that soil being dumped near the wall for ongoing construction work may have made it weak. He also asked engineers to explain why regular safety checks were not done.

The state government announced that the family of each of the seven dead will receive an ex‑gratia payment of ₹5 lakh.

The collapse has raised serious questions about the safety of old boundary walls around hospitals, schools, and government buildings in Bengaluru. Local residents and activists, including Jameel Ahmed Milansaar, are demanding a full safety audit of such structures in the city, especially in busy areas with heavy foot traffic.

They warn that without regular inspections and repairs, similar accidents can happen again in the future

.

یونیفارم میں گنڈا: بنگال میں اجے پال شرما کی تعیناتی انتخابی کمیشن کی سنگین غلطی تھی

انتخابی کمیشن آف انڈیا کو لمبے عرصے سے ہمارے جمہوری نظام کا سب سے معتبر اور قابلِ اعتماد محافظ سمجھا جاتا رہا ہے۔ عوام اس ادارے سے یہ توقع رکھتے ہیں کہ وہ سیاست کی آندھیوں سے بالاتر رہتے ہوئے آزاد، منصفانہ اور خوف سے پاک انتخابات کو یقینی بنائے گا۔مگر افسوس کہ مغربی بنگال کے موجودہ اسمبلی انتخابات کے دوران کمیشن نے جو فیصلہ کیا، اس نے اس اعتماد کو شدید دھچکا پہنچایا ہے۔ اتر پردیش کے متنازع آئی پی ایس افسر اجے پال شرما کو ساؤتھ 24 پرگناس میں پولس آبزرور کے طور پر بھیجنا، اور پھر ان کا وہ رویہ جو سامنے آیا، سوچنے پر مجبور کر دیتا ہے۔وائرل ویڈیو میں اجے پال شرما، جنہیں یوگی آدتیہ ناتھ کی حکومت میں ’انکاؤنٹر اسپیشلسٹ‘ اور ’سingham‘ کے نام سے جانا جاتا ہے، سینٹرل فورسز کے ساتھ ایک ٹی ایم سی امیدوار جہانگیر خان کے گھر پہنچتے ہیں۔ وہاں ان کے خاندان سے وہ لہجہ اختیار کرتے ہیں جو انتظامی نہیں، بلکہ صاف دھمکی آمیز ہے:

”اگر بدمعاشی جاری رکھی تو قاعدے سے علاج کیا جائے گا… بعد میں رونے کا کوئی فائدہ نہیں ہوگا۔“یہ الفاظ ایک غیر جانبدار آبزرور کے منہ سے نہیں نکلنے چاہییں تھے۔ یہ زبان ایک مقامی گنڈے کی زبان تھی — جو لوگوں کو ڈرانے اور ان کو سبق سکھانے آیا ہو۔بنگال میں سیاسی تشدد اور ووٹروں کو دبانے کی شکایات کوئی نئی بات نہیں۔ ان پر قابو پانا ضروری بھی ہے۔ لیکن سوال یہ پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ اس کا علاج کیا ہونا چاہیے؟ کیا علاج یہ ہے کہ ایک دوسری ریاست سے ایسے افسر کو بھیجا جائے جس کی ساری شہرت سخت گیر اور متنازع پولیسنگ سے جڑی ہوئی ہے؟ اور پھر اسے اسی انداز میں کام کرنے کی کھلی چھوٹ دے دی جائے؟اجے پال شرما اتر پردیش میں جس طرز کی کارروائیوں کے لیے مشہور ہیں، وہ شاید قانون و انتظام کے بعض معاملات میں کچھ لوگوں کو پسند آتا ہو۔ مگر انتخابات کی نگرانی جیسے نازک اور حساس کام کے لیے ان کی ذہنیت اور ان کا انداز بالکل موزوں نہیں۔ آبزرور کا کام دھمکیاں دینا یا ”علاج“ کرنے کا اعلان کرنا نہیں ہوتا۔ اس کا کام یہ دیکھنا ہوتا ہے کہ مقامی پولیس اور انتظامیہ غیر جانبداری سے اپنی ذمہ داریاں نبھا رہی ہے یا نہیں۔ جب ایک افسر، جس کا امیج ہی ایک خاص سیاسی جماعت کے انفورسر والا ہو، کیمرے کے سامنے امیدوار کے گھر جا کر اینٹھ کر بات کرے تو غیر جانبداری کا دعویٰ کس طرح credible لگ سکتا ہے؟اس پورے واقعے سے جو تاثر بن رہا ہے، وہ انتہائی خطرناک ہے۔ ایک بی جے پی حکمران ریاست کا افسر بنگال میں ٹی ایم سی کے امیدوار کو اینٹھ کر دھمکا رہا ہے — یہ منظر عام ووٹروں کے ذہن میں خوف پیدا کرتا ہے۔ کیا یہ آزاد انتخابات کا ماحول ہے؟ یا ایک نئی قسم کا دباؤ، جو پہلے والے دباؤ کی جگہ لے رہا ہے؟انتخابی کمیشن کو یہ سمجھنا ہوگا کہ آج کے دور میں صرف حقیقت ہی نہیں، تاثر بھی بہت اہم ہے۔ جب ریفری خود ایک ٹیم کا اینفورسر بن جائے تو پورا میچ مشکوک ہو جاتا ہے۔ جمہوریت کو سخت پولیس کی ضرورت نہیں ہوتی — اسے غیر جانبدار، شفاف اور انصاف پسند پولیس کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے۔ اسے ایسے لوگوں کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے جو خوف پیدا کرنے کی بجائے انصاف کے احساس سے احترام حاصل کریں۔اجے پال شرما کی تعیناتی اور ان کے رویے نے ایک بار پھر یہ سوال کھڑا کر دیا ہے کہ ہمارے آئینی ادارے کس حد تک سیاست سے بالاتر رہ پاتے ہیں۔ اگر انتخابی کمیشن جیسی مقدس ترین تنظیم بھی عوام کے ذہن میں سیاسی رنگ لیے ہوئے نظر آنے لگے تو پھر جمہوریت کی بنیاد ہی کمزور پڑ جاتی ہے۔یہ معاملہ صرف ایک افسر یا ایک امیدوار کا نہیں ہے۔ یہ اس اعتماد کا معاملہ ہے جو کروڑوں عوام اپنے انتخابی نظام پر رکھتے ہیں۔ اس اعتماد کو بچانا انتخابی کمیشن کی سب سے بڑی ذمہ داری ہے۔ اگر وہ اس ذمہ داری میں ناکام رہا تو آنے والی نسلیں اسے معاف نہیں کریں گی۔

"Don't Cry Later" – When an Election Observer Becomes the Goon

From Encounter Specialist to Election Intimidator: The Ajay Pal Sharma Scandal

by Jameel Aahmed Milansaar 

The Election Commission of India is supposed to be the guardian of free and fair elections — an institution above politics, beyond vendettas, and committed to instilling confidence in voters. Yet, its decision to deploy Uttar Pradesh’s controversial IPS officer Ajay Pal Sharma as Police Observer in South 24 Parganas during the ongoing West Bengal Assembly elections raises deeply troubling questions about neutrality, proportionality, and institutional judgment.

In a viral video that has sparked outrage, Sharma — widely known as an “encounter specialist” and “Singham” of Uttar Pradesh — is seen arriving at the residence of a TMC candidate with Central Armed Police Force personnel in tow. Instead of a measured, administrative tone befitting an Election Observer, he delivers a blunt, threatening message to the candidate’s family: “Kayde se ilaaj kiya jayega… Don’t cry later.” This is not the language of oversight. This is the language of intimidation.Let us be clear. West Bengal has a long, unfortunate history of political violence, booth capturing, and voter intimidation.

No serious observer can deny that. Complaints of strong-arm tactics deserve prompt and firm response. But the remedy cannot be to send an officer whose public image is that of a trigger-happy enforcer from a ruling party in another state and then allow him to behave like a local goonda on election duty.

“If you continue with your badmashi, it will be dealt with properly… Don’t cry later.”

— IPS Ajay Pal Sharma, Police Observer, West Bengal Assembly Elections

Ajay Pal Sharma’s entire reputation in Uttar Pradesh rests on a particular brand of muscular, encounter-oriented policing that thrived under the Yogi Adityanath regime. Whether or not one supports that style in law-and-order matters, it has no place in the delicate role of an Election Commission Observer. The Observer’s job is not to “fix” people or deliver street-style warnings. His job is to monitor, coordinate, and ensure that the local administration and police function impartially. When an officer with such a loaded image starts personally visiting candidates’ homes and issuing public threats, he stops looking like a neutral monitor and starts looking like a political instrument.

The optics are devastating. A police officer from a BJP-ruled state, with a well-known tough-guy persona, is seen aggressively targeting a TMC candidate in a high-stakes Bengal constituency. Is it any surprise that the opposition is crying foul? That Mahua Moitra, Akhilesh Yadav, and TMC leaders are questioning the Election Commission’s wisdom? When the referee starts behaving like one of the players’ enforcers, the entire game loses legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Even more disturbing is the potential chilling effect on ordinary voters and candidates. If an Election Observer can speak in the language of “don’t cry later,” what message does it send to the average citizen who may have genuine grievances against any side? Does it create an atmosphere of fear rather than fairness? The very presence of such an officer in this manner risks turning the Election Commission’s effort to curb intimidation into a new form of perceived intimidation.

The Election Commission routinely sends officers from other states to sensitive zones — and that practice itself is often necessary. But discretion and good sense must guide whom they choose and how they are allowed to conduct themselves. Appointing someone whose career is defined by a particular political regime’s policing style, and then letting him operate with such swagger, was avoidable and unwise.

Democracy does not require soft policing. It requires impartial policing. It requires observers who command respect through fairness, not fear through theatrics. The video of Ajay Pal Sharma does not inspire confidence that the Election Commission is rising above politics. Instead, it reinforces the dangerous perception that even the constitutional institutions meant to safeguard the electoral process are becoming battlegrounds for political signalling.

The Commission must reflect on this. Neutrality is not just a procedural requirement — it is the soul of credible elections. When that neutrality is compromised in perception, if not in reality, the damage is done not just to one party or one election, but to public faith in Indian democracy itself.

 

Raghu Rai - Through His Eyes, India will always Looks Back

 

BY : JAMEEL AAHMED MILANSAAR

In the quiet click of a shutter, a great photographer doesn’t just take a picture—he catches a moment before it disappears forever and turns it into something that stays with you long after the print has faded. That’s exactly the kind of magic Raghu Rai brought to his camera. He never chased fame or flashy awards. He simply pointed his lens at India and let the country tell its own story.

Raghu Rai left us on 26 April 2026, but the pictures he leaves behind will keep speaking for India for many generations to come. Born in 1942, he grew up at a time when photography in our country was mostly seen as a rich man’s hobby or a studio job clicking family portraits. Raghu changed all that. He is widely regarded as the pioneer of photojournalism in India because he proved a camera could do much more than look nice—it could bear honest witness. He walked into war zones, crowded streets, temples, and refugee camps with the same calm curiosity, and what he brought back wasn’t just photographs. It was truth with heart. His images made you stop and really see the people inside them.

Early on, the legendary French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson noticed something special in the young Indian. He took Raghu under his wing and, in 1977, nominated him to join Magnum Photos, the most respected photography collective in the world. For a boy from a small Punjab town, that was like being handed the keys to the biggest stage in the business. But success never changed Raghu. He stayed rooted, shooting with the same honesty he started with.

What truly set him apart was the way he told India’s story through books. He produced more than eighteen of them, each one a deep, loving look at our culture and our people. There was Raghu Rai’s Delhi, where the capital’s chaos and charm spilled across every page. The Sikhs captured the pride and warmth of that community like nobody else had. Calcutta throbbed with the city’s raw energy, while Khajuraho and Taj Mahal let ancient stones speak of love and devotion. Tibet in Exile showed the quiet pain of people far from home, India became a sweeping portrait of a billion lives, and Mother Teresa revealed the gentle strength of a woman who touched millions. These weren’t glossy coffee-table books you flipped through once and forgot. They were windows into real lives—full of sweat, colour, struggle, and joy. You could almost smell the monsoon or hear the temple bells.
The world took notice. In 1972 he received the Padma Shri for his powerful work on the Bangladesh War. In 1992 he was named Photographer of the Year in the USA. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry honoured him with a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2017, and in 2019 France’s Academie des Beaux Arts gave him the William Klein Photography Award. Yet Raghu wore all these honours lightly. For him, the real prize was always the next frame, the next story waiting to be told.On 26 April 2026, Raghu Rai passed away in Delhi at the age of 86 after battling prostate cancer for two years. He is survived by his wife Gurmeet Rai, his son Nitin, and his daughters Lagan, Avani, and Purvai. The family has lost a husband, a father, and a grandfather, but India has lost something far bigger—a man who taught us how to truly see ourselves.
His camera is silent now. But every time we look at one of his photographs, we hear the same gentle reminder: slow down, look closer, and remember that behind every face is a story worth remembering. Thank you, Raghu Rai. You didn’t just take pictures—you gave us back our own reflection, honest and beautiful.

mumtaz aalim-e-deen aur ustad-ul-asatiza Hazrat Maulana Qari Ahmadullah Sahab (Ustad Madrasa Arabia Rahmania, Kambi Pur, Bangalore) apne khaaliq-e-haqeeqi se ja mile hain. Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilayhi Raji'oon.

 

Don't Communalize Exam Hall Rules: The Truth Behind CET Dress Code Row

 

Don't Communalize Exam Hall Rules: The Truth Behind CET Dress Code Row

By ; Jameel Aahmed Milansaar

“We were asked to remove our Janeu before sitting for the CET examination,” recounted a student who appeared for the Common Entrance Test here. This simple statement has ignited a firestorm on social media, with viral X posts twisting it into a narrative of bias: "Boys weren’t allowed to wear Janeu (holy thread) while writing CET exams, but burqa is allowed! This is our Karnataka government!!"

Such claims are not just misleading—they're deliberate distortions designed to stoke communal fires. Karnataka's exam halls, from CET to board exams, enforce a uniform dress code to curb malpractice: no head coverings (including burqas or hijabs), no full sleeves, no religious symbols. Every student undergoes frisking and must remove these items before entry. Official guidelines from the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) and Department of Pre-University Education are clear and apply equally—no exceptions for any faith.

Yes, Janeu enforcement has been spotty. Recent CET 2026 incidents, where students were asked to tuck away or remove the sacred thread, have sparked valid questions about consistency. But portraying this as "anti-Hindu" favoritism toward Muslims ignores reality: burqas are strictly banned, just as janeus are scrutinized. In 2022's hijab controversy, courts upheld these rules, affirming that exam integrity trumps religious expression in controlled spaces.

This isn't about faith—it's about fairness. Social media warriors cherry-pick facts to divide us, turning a procedural hiccup into a Hindu-Muslim binary. Karnataka's diverse students—Hindus, Muslims, Christians, others—navigate the same rules daily. Communalizing them erodes trust in institutions and distracts from real issues like exam leaks or seat quotas.

As a secular society, we must demand uniform enforcement, not selective outrage. Let's call out misinformation, support clear policies, and reject those who profit from polarization. Facts unite; fiction fractures.

He is Bengaluru South MP,
@Tejasvi_Surya . As soon as he came to know about the incident where a student was asked to remove janivara, he rushed to the exam centre. He appears very eager to highlight this issue, FYI info guys: the government and the concerned ministry have clearly stated that there is no requirement to remove janivara, and no one should be forced to do so. They have also assured that strict action will be taken if such incidents occur—and today, immediate action has already been taken. Have you seen him respond with the same urgency to other genuine issues?