SRINAGAR, Jammu and Kashmir ― In 2017, when Rabiya Nissar, a student from Kashmir had gone for a national martial arts event to Delhi, some boys turned up and started harassing the girls she was travelling with. The boys, who had no idea the girls were trained in martial arts, received a beating from Rabiya and her group.  

“I want every girl to join martial arts to gain the confidence level which is required in modern times,” said the 14-year-old. “For me, it’s a way of life.  It teaches me how to walk while keeping my head high.”

For the past four years, Rabiya has been attending Iron Fist Wing Chun, a martial arts academy in Srinagar, Kashmir, run by Peerzada Adil Shah, an IT professional and a black belt in Taekwondo and other martial art styles, since 2012.  It was two years later that Shah started a separate class for girls at the academy, located in Soura, a volatile neighbourhood on the outskirts of the city. 

Not only is Muslim-majority Kashmir a conflict zone which sees frequent clashes between security forces and residents, especially in Srinagar, the traditionally conservative valley is also confronting a rise in crimes against women.  The class for girls, which started with six, has swelled up to 60. It is the parents who religiously drop of and pick up their girls from the academy, every weekend. 

“There are young girls, school goers, college students, university scholars in the batch for girls,” said Shah, a librarian at Sheri Kashmir University for Agriculture and Science Technology (SKUAST), who has self-funded the academy. “Self defence and martial arts is need of hour for girls.” 

The academy has recently added a “super mom” group. “Martial arts is a discipline of life and it has two objectives, how not to fight and how to finish quickly,” he said. 

Muskaan Rashid, who has trained at the academy, described how she reacted when some boys passed lewd comments and hit her brother in 2018. “I intervened and punched one of them badly,” said the 14-year-old. “I told them to go and bring whoever you want to bring.”

Political finance has long served as the wellspring of corruption in India. For the average Indian, it is hardly breaking news to learn that the murky flow of funds that fuels politicians and political parties largely explains why corruption remains endemic in India. As the costs of elections have soared, politicians—and the bureaucrats under their sway—have mastered the art of skillfully manipulating the regulatory and policy levers at their disposal in exchange for easy campaign cash. And if an aspiring candidate is so lucky as to win higher office, the quest to rebuild one’s coffers for reelection start afresh. Campaign spending is an investment—one that pays back with interest once you are in office. While these realities are well known, the dark currents of political funding largely flow out of public view. 

Amidst this depressing backdrop, in 2017 the Modi government touted the creation of a new political funding mechanism, known as electoral bonds, as a harbinger of a new era of transparency and accountability. In truth, electoral bonds have only legitimized opacity. The government has promised reform, while doubling down on nefarious old habits. But as a recent five-part investigative series in HuffPost India—#PaisaPolitics—authored by the journalist Nitin Sethi reveals, this new instrument has done something more: it has intensified the crisis confronting India’s much-vaunted apex institutions. 

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on Twitter, Facebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

Political interference, executive overreach, the failure to propagate standards of accountability—both within institutions and outside them—have long plagued India’s institutional edifice. But, for decades, we have consoled ourselves by highlighting the fact that a great many institutional maladies afflicting Indian governance have largely been relegated to lower-level agencies and bodies. In the memorable words of economist Lant Pritchett, “the head, that is the elite institutions at the national (and in some states) level remain sound and functional but this head is no longer reliably connected via nerves and sinews to its own limbs.” 

The most striking aspect of Nitin Sethi’s remarkable investigation into electoral bonds—their origins, design, and operations—is the pall it casts on venerable institutions, from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Election Commission of India (ECI), and even Parliament. All expressed serious reservations about the electoral bonds scheme and an extremely powerful executive, backed by the first single party Lok Sabha majority in three decades, methodically steamrolled them all. All told, the series reveals deeply disturbing trends about India’s apex institutions.

In his 2017 Budget speech, then-Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced the government’s intention to introduce a new modality of electoral funding that would distinguish itself from the shadowy status quo by embracing the celebrated—but often absent—principle of transparency in election finance. It took nearly a year to notify the scheme, but the basic operating framework was simple. Individuals, associations, and corporations wishing to make donations to political parties could approach the State Bank of India (SBI) and purchase (tax free) time-limited bearer bonds in specified denominations during certain windows of time throughout the year that they could subsequently deposit into the registered bank accounts of political parties.

The kernel of transparency the government loudly touted sprung from the fact that electoral bond transactions occurred through the formal banking system, thereby ensuring—in the government’s view—that only legitimate entities using white money could avail of the scheme. As a result, the SBI—and presumably the banking regulator—would know which entities had made donations to which political parties thanks to a digital paper trail. Unfortunately, this is where the transparency begins and ends. The donor faces no obligation of reporting the donation and the recipient—the political party—need not disclose the donor’s identity. So, for all intents and purposes, each and every bond transaction is, well, highly non-transparent. To put a finer point on it, opacity is not simply incidental—it is intrinsic to the design of the scheme. 

At the time electoral bonds were introduced, the government also enacted a number of additional changes to campaign finance law through provisions in the Finance Act that have further muddied the waters. 

First, it eliminated the cap on corporate donations, previously restricted to 7.5 percent of a firm’s average net profits in the past three years. Second, it dropped the requirement that companies disclose details of their political giving. Instead of issuing a thorough inventory of political donations in their annual statement of accounts, firms would only have to divulge an aggregate figure. Third, the government—with support from the opposition—amended the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) to expand the definition of a “foreign” firm, with the express intent of widening the ambit of firms that could legally make political donations. The upshot of these changes was as obvious as it was unfortunate. Any individual, firm or special interest group could now give an unlimited sum of money to any political party without disclosing a single rupee and nobody—no voter, no citizen, no journalist, and no civil society representative—would be able to connect the dots. 

To be fair, all of this was known when the electoral bond scheme came into force in early 2018. But what the HuffPost India investigation tells us is a much broader story of institutional weakness.

As the Finance Ministry was preparing its 2017 Budget and crafting the precise language around electoral bonds, it belatedly sought guidance from the RBI when it realized—at the eleventh hour—that the scheme would require amendments to the RBI Act. On January 28, 2017, the ministry urgently wrote the RBI for comments on the proposed amendments. On January 30, the RBI responded by conveying its deep misgivings, arguing that the electoral bond scheme was vulnerable to money laundering, opacity, and potential abuse. The Finance Ministry’s internal rejoinder suggested that the RBI’s reservations were misguided and, in any case, too late: the Finance Minister was to present the annual budget on February 1. The episode was reminiscent of another ill-fated policy innovation—demonetization—when the Finance Ministry essentially presented the currency move to the apex bank as a fait accompli. In the latter case, consultations with the RBI were largely pro forma; in the case of electoral bonds, the RBI was deemed to be too insignificant to matter.

Another apex institution, the Election Commission of India (ECI), fared little better. For decades, the ECI has been at the forefront of the battle to combat black money and opacity in Indian elections. Warehouses could be filled with public statements, white papers, and recommendations the ECI has offered up on campaign finance reform in recent years. So it is hardly shocking that the ECI vociferously objected to the proposed system of electoral bonds, which accept opacity as an essential feature. The ECI argued its objections to the Government on multiple grounds: concerns about foreign influence, the further consolidation of a corrupt business-politics nexus, and legal loopholes that could allow for dodgy money to be routed through shell companies. These concerns fell on deaf ears. 

In fact, the back-and-forth between the ECI and the Government implicates yet another crucial federal institution—the Parliament. When asked by a Member of Parliament (MP) whether the ECI had expressed any concerns over electoral bonds, the then-minister of state for finance answered in the negative. What followed was an intense cover-up on the part of Finance Ministry officials who realized that the minister had erred in issuing such an unequivocal denial. Exploiting the fact that the ECI’s written objections to the scheme were directed to the Law Ministry (rather than the Finance Ministry) and the fact that the ECI’s subsequent entreaties to the Finance Ministry occurred in face-to-face meetings, ministry mandarins claimed that the Finance Ministry had not received any formal (read: written) complaints (The HuffPost India investigation actually shows that both of these excuses were later proven false).

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) too has a role to play in this sordid story. Under the rules governing the operation of electoral bonds—published in January 2018—the SBI is authorized to issue electoral bonds during a 10-day period at the start of each quarter (January, April, July, and October) and an additional 30-day period in the year of Lok Sabha elections. The ink had hardly dried on these regulations when the PMO allegedly intervened to compel the SBI to open three special windows in March, April and May 2018. This was a critical time as the Karnataka assembly elections were held on May 12 (it is worth nothing that a similar exception was made in November 2018 in advance of the December assembly elections held in six crucial states). To add insult to injury, the Finance Ministry instructed SBI to encash bonds totaling Rs. 10 crore even though the time-limited bonds had expired and the Karnataka elections were completed (the election resulted in a hung assembly). It is unclear which party benefited from this exception and whether it directly impacted post-election horse-trading. 

But the enthusiasm expressed by the government is easy to understand in light of what we know about who has benefitted from electoral bonds. A Right to Information (RTI) request analyzed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) revealed that 95 percent of electoral bond purchases made in 2017-18 went to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). 

In the end, the lessons of #PaisaPolitics are straightforward. First, transparency of any meaningful sort continues to elude political funding in India. In fact, the only entity that has a clearer picture of the political finance realities in India today is the government itself. Electoral bonds on their own have not constructed this opaque reality; they have only served to ossify it. Second, nearly every independent institution of the state that has come into contact with the electoral bonds scheme—the RBI, the ECI, Parliament—has expressed reservations but proved unable or unwilling to affect change. In turn, the executive has further expanded its reach, and the credibility crisis afflicting India’s core institutions continues apace. Finally, the BJP was propelled to power in 2014 after delivering a devastating critique of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance’s tenure, which was marked by excesses of cronyism and graft. Modi pledged his government would reverse the country’s institutional decline and root out political corruption. Alas, electoral bonds have only hastened the former and institutionalized the latter.         

Milan Vaishnav is senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. He is author of When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politicsand co-editor (with Devesh Kapur) of Costs of Democracy: Political Finance in India. 

Just a few months after Sanjay Manjrekar received severe flak for calling Ravindra Jadeja “a bits and pieces player”, the former cricketer has landed himself in another controversy for his on-air comments against Harsha Bhogle. 

During the third day of the day/night Test between India and Bangladesh, Bhogle suggested that the players need to be asked about the visibility of the pink ball, according to NDTV. He also asked for a proper analysis of the pink ball Test during the commentary. 

“Don’t think so. Because when you see the slip catchers the way they have taken catches, I don’t think visibility is an issue at all. The texture of the ball is the issue,” responded Manjrekar, according to News18.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on Twitter, Facebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

Bhogle, however, said that he would ask the players from both sides.

Manjrekar, according to the NDTV report, replied, “only you need to ask Harsha, not us, who have played a fair bit of the game.”

Manjrekar further added that he could perhaps say that with some authority after having played 10-15 years of first-class cricket. Bhogle, according to News18, responded by saying, “having played cricket should never be a limitation or a ceiling to learning.”

Manjrekar’s comments did not go down well with Twitter users who asked him to apologise to Bhogle. 

Others said that they were switching channels to avoid Manjrekar’s commentary. 

Some could not help but take a dig at his “bits and pieces” remark. 

In July, Jadeja had also hit out at Manjrekar over his “bits and pieces” statement and said he had “heard enough of your verbal diarrhoea”.

“Still I have played twice the number of matches you have played and I am still playing. Learn to respect people who have achieved. I have heard enough of your verbal diarrhoea,” Jadeja had tweeted.

After Jadeja’s brilliant performance in the World Cup semifinal, Manjrekar admitted that he has been “ripped apart on all fronts”.

“By bits ‘n’ pieces of sheer brilliance, he’s ripped me apart on all fronts. This is the Jadeja we haven’t seen before. Today (Wednesday) he was brilliant,” Manjrekar said, according to PTI.

(With PTI inputs)

As we approach Thanksgiving, parents and teachers are talking to children about the importance of gratitude and expressing thanks for the many wonderful gifts they’ve been given in life. But these are meaningful lessons to teach year round. 

“It is important to teach children gratitude because gratitude is a learned behavior,” said Kerry Maunus, co-founder of “Turkey on the Table,” a Thanksgiving book and activity kit aimed at promoting gratitude. “It is not innate. If your child learns to practice gratitude, they will reap the many benefits gratitude has been proven to provide, including empathy toward others, better physical health, and a stronger ability to overcome obstacles and face adversities.”

Indeed, practicing gratitude has been linked to happiness, confidence, compassion and more. But how exactly can loving adults instill a sense of gratitude in their children? HuffPost spoke to parents and experts to find out.  

Express Your Gratitude For Them

Perhaps the most important way to raise grateful children is to model gratitude yourself. It is particularly helpful to let your kids know how much you appreciate them. 

“Start by showing your children how thankful you are for their thoughtful or helpful acts,” said Amy McCready, founder of Positive Parenting Solutions. “And be specific about how they made a difference for you: ‘Thank you for playing with the dog while I had my conference call. I really appreciate how you kept him occupied so I could concentrate on the meeting.’ Being the recipient of gratitude will encourage your kids to want to pass it on.”

Indeed, knowing what it’s like to feel appreciated makes it easier to feel and express gratitude for others, said Jennifer Cohen Harper, an educator, public speaker and author of the children’s book “Thank You Body, Thank You Heart­­.” This is true for both adults and children. 

“Letting our kids know we are grateful for them gives them an embodied experience of what it feels like to be appreciated,” she said. “It builds up their sense of self and strengthens your relationship while supporting their capacity to feel and express gratitude for others and the world around them.”

Let Them See You Show Gratitude For Others

Parents can also model gratitude by expressing it in other ways throughout their everyday lives. 

“Let them see you giving thanks on a daily basis to the various people in your life ― from the cashier at the grocery store, to the dry cleaner to their teachers,” said McCready. “Your kids are watching and listening.”

Beyond thanking other people, parents can also show appreciation for simple things by pausing and demonstrating it in the moment. 

“Show your kids that it’s worth slowing down and taking time to really savor simple things,” said Cohen Harper. “For example, saying, ‘This ice cream is delicious. I’m so glad I have a tongue to taste it with and you to share it with. I’m going to take a super slow bite and let it melt in my mouth. Want to try it with me?’”

Talk About What Gratitude Really Means

“With young children, a lot of times they learn gratitude as a sort of politeness behavior ― mindlessly saying ‘thank you’ as part of a script,” said Giacomo Bono, an associate professor of psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, where he is director of the Positive Social Development and Dynamics Lab. 

Bono advised going into detail about the people and things we appreciate, their value to us and our responsibility to acknowledge that to them. 

Andrea Hussong, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, echoed Bono’s advice. She developed the Raising Grateful Children project to examine ways that parents can cultivate gratitude in their kids. 

“We believe gratitude is an experience with four parts: what kids notice in their lives that they’re grateful to have, what they think about why they’ve received those things, how they feel about them and what they do to show gratitude,” Hussong said. “Most parents just focus on what kids do, but that think-and-feel part helps kids make meaning of gratitude, take it in and pass it on.”

Parents should explain out loud the thoughts and feelings attached to things they appreciate. “Give voice to what’s in your head,” Hussong said. “Say, ’I love the butterfly sweater I received. She knows I love butterflies. That makes me feel good. I’m going to send her a thank-you note.”

Cohen Harper refers to these kinds of examples as “supercharged thank yous” ― statements that include clarifying information like, “Thank you for making dinner tonight. I know it took a lot of effort, and it makes me feel so cared for.”

“Supercharged thank yous offer powerful modeling, and they make the person receiving them feel great, too, so they are a big win-win,” she said. 

Focus On Looking For Silver Linings

“Gratitude is about paying attention to the good things we have in life and being able to keep doing that when you’re in a bad mood or something bad happens,  which makes focusing on the good things more challenging,” Bono said. “You can model keeping things in perspective by always trying to look at the bright side of something.”

McCready seconded Bono’s advice to emphasize silver linings when unfortunate situations unfold. 

“We’re stuck in terrible traffic on the way to visit grandma, but at least we have great music and snacks,” she offered as an example. “Or, ‘The movie we wanted to see is sold out, but now we have time to go roller skating instead!’”

McCready also recommended being careful not to make these small lessons too sermon-like. “Otherwise, our kids will tune right out,” she said.

Establish Gratitude Routines

Parents should consider making rituals based around gratitude a regular part of each day.

“For many families, including mine, bedtime is the perfect time to reflect with our kids on what is happening in their world,” said Cohen Harper. “Ask them to linger over a good experience, describe what it felt like, hold it in their memory for a few moments.”

Other rituals and activities she suggests include keeping a gratitude journal (individually or as a family), going around the dinner table and acknowledging one thing everyone is grateful for, taking a minute at the end of the day to name aspects of our bodies, minds and hearts that supported us that day, or creating gratitude web art projects based around things kids appreciate. The art projects could involve drawing ice cream in the middle and then surrounding it with an adult who worked to buy it, the people who sold it at the shop, the farmer who milked the cow, the cow itself, etc.

“Getting in the habit of talking about all of the good things in your life will promote more positivity in your family,” said “Turkey on the Table” co-founder April George. 

Use Resources

There are many books for parents and for kids that focus on the importance of gratitude. McCready published a parenting book called “The ‘Me, Me, Me’ Epidemic: A Step-by-Step Guide to Raising Capable, Grateful Kids in an Over-Entitled World,” which contains many strategies and tips that go from toddlerhood to teens. 

Bono is the co-author of “Making Grateful Kids: The Science of Building Character” with Jeffrey Froh. He also developed “Thanks! A Strengths-Based Gratitude Curriculum for Tweens and Teens.”

Cohen Harper said that her book “Thank You Body, Thank You Heart” aims “to nurture gratitude for everyday life in the context of self-compassion.” For parents, she recommends Rick Hanson’s book “Hardwiring Happiness,” as well as the other resources he offers through his podcast and online content.

According to George, “Raising Grateful Kids in an Entitled World″ by Kristen Welch is a helpful resource for parents. She also recommends the book and activity kit she developed with Maunus. “‘Turkey on the Table’ is a fantastic way for the entire family to engage in the practice of gratitude,” she said. 

Volunteer As A Family

“Most of us intend to give back with our time, but life often gets in the way,” McCready said. “But we need to make family service a priority. Brainstorm with the kids about how and where you’ll offer your time and talents. Not only will the people we serve benefit, but our kids will put their own blessings in perspective.”

As a mom of two who works in public grant-making and runs a private giving circle, Ashley Firestone has spent a lot of time thinking about ways to instill gratitude in her children. 

“We acknowledge our gratitude and try to figure out ways to make that gratitude available to people who aren’t able to access it right now,” she explained, noting that they talk about how to serve others and the responsibility they have to be helpers. 

“We have found wonderful local organizations that are connecting with issues that are tangible for kids, like homelessness and food insecurity, and try to make regular time to volunteer as a family alongside and learn from folks who are impacted by and trying to solve the issue,” said Firestone.

They’ve packed “birthday kits” for a food pantry and “winter kits” for a homeless shelter through the organization Repair the World and spent time with volunteers at the Red Hook Farm, which empowers local teens to grow and take home vegetables in a neighborhood with limited access to fresh produce.

“Our kids are the best guide to identify what issues will engage them,” Firestone added. “We ask them what problems they see in the world and then do a bit of research on the back end to see what organizations are addressing those issues. Giving money is one way that we show gratitude. Giving time and making personal connections has been more meaningful for our kids.”

Tesla Inc Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk indicated in a tweet on Sunday that the electric carmaker received 200,000 orders for its electric pickup truck within three days of its launch.

Musk, who has been regularly tweeting about the Cybertruck’s features since its launch late Thursday, has also been updating his followers with the number of orders the company has received.

In an earlier tweet, Musk said the company had received 146,000 orders for Cybertruck, and tweeted again on Sunday saying “200K” — an apparent reference to the number of orders.

The company’s website shows that an immediate payment of $100 is required to reserve an order for the Cybertruck, which has a starting price of $39,900.

The launch of its futuristic pickup on Thursday suffered a setback when the electric vehicle’s “armored glass” windows shattered in a much-anticipated unveiling. The overall look of the electric vehicle had worried Wall Street on Friday, driving the automaker’s shares to close 6.1% lower.

During the launch, Musk had taken aim at the design, power and durability of mainstream trucks, only to be shaken when his boast about his new vehicle’s windows backfired.

Separately, Musk said the Cybertruck is Tesla’s last product unveil for a while.

Tesla plans to start manufacturing the Cybertruck around late-2021.

Will Ferrell was tooling along with his monologue in his fifth time hosting “Saturday Night Live” when he spotted a face in the audience that looked surprisingly familiar.

“Excuse me, but you look a lot like Ryan Reynolds,” Ferrell said.

“I get that a lot,” Ryan Reynolds replied.

That’s when Ferrell’s monologue hit the skids as he pretended to be flustered by the fact that Reynolds and wife Blake Lively — watching at home — are big fans.

Reynolds finally told Ferrell to stop looking at him and get back to the monologue. But Ferrell then insisted it was terrible and began to deliver a mangled impression of former “SNL” cast member and “30 Rock” star Tracy Morgan — who also suddenly appeared.

Ferrell frequently pulls out the odd impression to calm him down when he’s nervous, he explained. Morgan backed up Ferrell on stage. “Anything for you, Ferrell,” Morgan said. “But you talk like me again, I’m going to bust your ass.”

Check it out in the video up top.

Later in the show, Reynolds appeared with Alex Moffat in a steamy “Weekend Update” sketch on dating tips. Colin Jost — who’s engaged to Reynolds’ ex-wife, Scarlett Johansson — wrapped up the scene by calling Reynolds and Moffat his “two best friends.”

Last week, Twitter user Jon Becker asked for people to hit him with their “most controversial opinion”. Since then, that tweet has reached 3 million views and ruffled quite a few feathers. 

People are still discussing and fighting over some of the takes unleashed in response to Becker.

Common enemies such as lettuce, Brussel sprouts and pineapple pizza were, unsurprisingly, among the first to be targeted. Some of the replies to the tweet, that got over 30 thousand people talking across the world, were pretty hilarious. 

Some said walnuts were terrible.

And even people who like walnuts agreed with this. 

There was some anger towards raisins and Commonwealth countries too 

But things began to heat up when the really unpopular opinions began to be aired. Adults fought like children over this Thanksgiving tweet. 

Then a Twitter user said what he really thought about rice, saying “it is just here to fix wet phones.” 😂

The war over this tweet is still raging. People are heartbroken and disappointed. 

Friendships were ended over Nezi Braxton’s feelings for rice. 

People fainted in all kinds of languages. 

And the Twitter user accepted defeat. 

And then, a Twitter user decided to get REALLY honest and said he hated Indian food. 

People were united in their disdain for this tweet irrespective of geographical location and ethnicity. 

People even warned him with jail time. 

Also this: 

Nichols has been accused of racism and not understanding that “Indian food” actually refers to a wide variety of cuisines from different parts of the country.

On a serious note, people did point out that the original tweet had become an excuse for people to air thoughts they normally would think twice about before uttering out loud.

The discussion goes on and on and on, with people are still venting over candy corn, mint chocolate, beer and garlic. This Twitter user put it succinctly: 

Or is it? As we type, more and more people are asking for “controversial opinions” on everything from children’s books to cricket. 

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Punjab and Haryana governments for increase in stubble burning despite its order prohibiting it and said people in Delhi can’t be left to die due to air pollution.

Expressing displeasure over the failure of states in preventing stubble burning, the apex court said: “Should this be tolerated? Is this not worse than internal war? You better finish them all with explosives.”

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on Twitter, Facebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

A bench of justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta said the life span of millions of citizens has shortened and people are “suffocating” due to pollution in Delhi-NCR.

“Can you treat people like this and permit them to die due to pollution,” asked the bench.

“Why are people in this gas chamber? You better finish them all. This wrong is going on for long,” it said.

The apex court slammed the Centre and states for “blame game” on the issue of water and air pollution in Delhi.

Taking serious note of water pollution in Delhi, it said people have right to get pure drinking water.

“We are ‘literally shocked’ that water is polluted in Delhi and blame game is going on. What is this happening,” the bench said.

There are marriage anniversaries and then there are marriage anniversaries: John and Charlotte Henderson’s upcoming 80th anniversary falls into the latter category. 

They pair will be celebrating eight decades of marriage on December 15, but that’s not all: The two lovebirds from Austin, Texas, just claimed the Guinness World Record title of the oldest married couple in the world with their combined age of 211.

John, now 106, met Charlotte, now 105, when they were students at the University of Texas in 1934, just around the height of the Great Depression. At the time, John was a guard for the football team while Charlotte was studying to become a teacher. 

As they tell it, it was pretty much a case of love at first sight: John noticed his future spouse in a lecture hall one day and quickly made his move. 

“Charlotte looked over her shoulder and smiled and I knew I wanted to take her on a date,” he told TODAY. “She was anxious for me to ask her!” 

The Hendersons, who have no children, were married five years later. They told CNN that they spent a grand total of $7 on the hotel room for their honeymoon.

The couple have lived at Longhorn Village, a retirement community in Austin, for the past decade. They’re still big Longhorns fans; they watch games in their downtime together and John tries to attend at least one game every season. 

Luckily for all of us, the loved-up centenarians are quick to reveal their time-tested formula for a long life and a happy marriage. The trick to reaching 100-plus? 

“Living in moderation,” John said in an interview with Kaiser Health News back in 2017. “We never overdo anything. Eat well. Sleep well. Don’t over-drink. Don’t overeat. And exercise regularly.”

Charlotte chimed in, saying that just being married has helped them pass 100. 

“We had such a good time when John retired. We traveled a lot,” she said. “We just stay busy all the time, and I’m sure that helps.”

“Exxon knew.” Thanks to the work of activists and journalists, those two words have rocked the politics of climate change in recent years, as investigations revealed the extent to which giants like Exxon Mobil and Shell were aware of the danger of rising greenhouse gas emissions even as they undermined the work of scientists.

But the coal industry knew, too — as early as 1966, a newly unearthed journal shows.

In August, Chris Cherry, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, salvaged a large volume from a stack of vintage journals that a fellow faculty member was about to toss out. He was drawn to a 1966 copy of the industry publication Mining Congress Journal;his father-in-law had been in the industry and he thought it might be an interesting memento.

Cherry flipped it open to a passage from James R. Garvey, who was the president of Bituminous Coal Research Inc., a now-defunct coal mining and processing research organization. 

“There is evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is increasing rapidly as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels,” wrote Garvey. “If the future rate of increase continues as it is at the present, it has been predicted that, because the CO2 envelope reduces radiation, the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will increase and that vast changes in the climates of the earth will result.” 

“Such changes in temperature will cause melting of the polar icecaps, which, in turn, would result in the inundation of many coastal cities, including New York and London,” he continued.

Cherry was floored.

“It pretty well described a version of what we know today as climate change,” said Cherry. “Increases in average air temperatures, melting of polar ice caps, rising of sea levels. It’s all in there.” 

In a discussion piece immediately following Garvey’s article, Peabody Coal combustion engineer James R. Jones noted that the coal industry was merely “buying time” before more air pollution regulations came into effect. “We are in favor of cleaning up our air,” he wrote. “Everyone can point to examples in his own community where something should be done. Our aim is to have control that does not precede the technical knowledge for compliance.” 

Climate change is not Cherry’s area of study, but he was struck by how the tone of the articles differed from the way many fossil fuel companies talk about climate change today. Rather than engage in denial, the articles offered a fairly straightforward acknowledgment of the emerging science. (This reporter is also a writer for UT’s Tickle College of Engineering, where Cherry teaches.)

As Cherry did some of his own digging, he soon realized his discovery could be the first evidence that the coal industry was aware of the impending climate crisis more than half a century ago — a finding that could open mining companies to the type of litigation that the oil industry is now facing. 

Decades Of Denial

While Peabody Energy, the largest private-sector coal company in the world and the largest producer of coal in the U.S., now acknowledges climate change on its website, it has been directly and indirectly involved in obfuscating climate science for decades. It funded dozens of trade, lobbying and front groups that peddled climate misinformation, as The Guardian reported in 2016. 

As recently as 2015, Peabody Energy argued that carbon dioxide was a “benign gas essential for all life.” 

“While the benefits of carbon dioxide are proven, the alleged risks of climate change are contrary to observed data, are based on admitted speculation, and lack adequate scientific basis,” the company wrote in a letter that year to the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

At the heart of big coal’s denial campaign was Fred Palmer, who served as Peabody’s senior vice president of government relations from 2001 to 2015. In 1997, Palmer founded the Greening Earth Society, a now-defunct industry front group that argued that burning fossil fuels was good for the planet. The group was based in the same office as the Western Fuels Association, a consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities that Palmer also ran. 

“Every time you turn your car on and you burn fossil fuels and you put CO2 into the air, you’re doing the work of the Lord,” Palmer told a Danish documentary team in 1997. “That’s the ecological system we live in.” 

Asked for comment, a Peabody spokesperson told HuffPost: “Peabody recognizes that climate change is occurring and that human activity, including the use of fossil fuels, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. We also recognize that coal is essential to affordable, reliable energy and will continue to play a significant role in the global energy mix for the foreseeable future. Peabody views technology as vital to advancing global climate change solutions, and the company supports advanced coal technologies to drive continuous improvement toward the ultimate goal of near-zero emissions from coal.”

Palmer, who did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment, continues to carry the torch. He now works as an energy policy adviser to The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank whose climate denial is so severe that even Exxon Mobil abandoned funding it and its climate denial efforts a decade ago. In 2011, leaked memos showed that the institute paid contrarian scientists like Craig Idso, founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, $11,600 a month to promote carbon dioxide as beneficial to the environment.

The group sits at the heart of a broader right-wing misinformation network fundedin large part by hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah, both Republican mega-donors who backed President Donald Trump and financed projects such as Breitbart News and Cambridge Analytica, the data firm considered key to Trump’s 2016 win. Palmer’s daughter, Downey Magallanes, was a top policy adviser at Trump’s Interior Department before joining oil giant BP in September 2018. 

All of this was taking place well after climate change had become a commonly understood idea in the scientific community. A 1965 report from President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee was the first from the White House to address climate change (and is likely what precipitated the Mining Congress Journal article). “The climate changes that may be produced by the increased CO2 content could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings,” it warned. In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified to Congress about what was then known as the “greenhouse effect.” And in 1992, the United Nations established the Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international treaty to begin addressing the problem.

But as this consensus emerged, so too did a wave of industry-funded climate denial via vast, shadowy networks of front groups, public relations campaigns and scientists for hire.

Pulling Back The Curtain

In 2015, journalists at InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times and Columbia University exposed internal Exxon Mobil documents showing that the company’s scientists had a deep understanding of climate change even as Exxon worked publicly to downplay that science. 

Twenty state attorneys general launched an “Exxon Knew” campaign, which eventually led to communities across the country filing at least 14 legal challenges against Exxon and other fossil fuel companies. One lawsuit, from the New York state attorney general’s office, went to trial on Oct. 22 and focuses on how the company accounted for the costs of potential future regulations on climate change. The Massachusetts attorney general filed another suit on Oct. 24, this time claiming the company had engaged in deceptive advertising and misled investors about the systemic financial risks to its business posed by fossil fuel-driven climate change. Earlier this month, two of Hawaii’s biggest municipalities sued Exxon and other big oil companies to recoup the costs of adapting to rising seas and more violent storms. 

Evidence of what fossil fuel companies knew about climate change and when is critical to the legal strategy of those seeking damages for carbon dioxide emissions. If fossil fuel companies were aware of their products’ harmful effects on the planet, they could be held liable for damages.

Legal liability boils down to four factors, said David Bookbinder, chief counsel for the Niskanen Center, which isrepresenting counties in Coloradothat have filed suit: one, whether the defendants knew that their products would cause climate change; two, what they told or did not tell the public about the consequences of using their products; three, the extent of injuries caused by climate change; and four, whether the defendants’ actions have led to a portion of those injuries. What the plaintiffs in these suits can prove remains to be seen.

What we do know is that coal, when burned, has by far the biggest climate footprint of any fossil fuel, producing more carbon dioxide per unit than oil or gas. In the U.S. alone, coal produced 65% of the power sector’s planet-warming emissions. The 1966 article in the Mining Congress Journal certainly raises questions about what the coal industry knew at the time.

Robert Brulle, a professor emeritus of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, authored a recent paper that suggests the coal industry must have known quite a bit, given how prominently it positioned itself in the climate denial movement. 

Brulle researched 12 major groups and coalitions that argued against mandatory regulation of carbon dioxide from 1989 to 2015 — which he calls the “climate change countermovement.” That countermovement included 2,000 different businesses, political or social groups, as well as other organizations, but Brulle found that 179 core organizations belonged to multiple coalitions. Coal companies and predominantly coal-burning utilities were the most prevalent. He describes oil and gas companies as “more of a marginal player” by comparison. 

“The coal mining industry — the utilities that were burning it for electricity, along with the railroads who were hauling it — and manufacturing industries like steel were the first corporate forces to become climate deniers and try to block action on climate policy,” said Kert Davies, founder and director of the Climate Investigations Center. “They fought the hardest because they had the biggest existential threat.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

In the aftermath of the 1973 oil embargo, Exxon and other oil giants leased large parcels of land for coal mining with the goal of manufacturing synthetic fuels and lowering U.S. dependence on the Middle East.

Some previously released documents show that Exxon’s scientists began advising that the world phase out coal as a fuel as early as 1979. In one scenario, the Exxon scientists concluded that non-fossil fuels would need to be substituted for coal beginning in the 1990s to keep carbon dioxide levels below atmospheric concentrations of 440 parts per million. In 1999, Exxon merged with Mobil, and by 2002, Exxon Mobil had dumped its coal assets. 

Meanwhile, the coal industry tried to reinvent itself with the concept of “clean coal.” This as-yet-undelivered promise that carbon capture and other technological advances could lower coal’s environmental impact has been around for decades but resurged in the early 2000s as regulations seemed imminent. 

The biggest proponent of this idea was the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal front group that spent $35 million on public relations campaigns in 2008 alone, seeking to influence the election. A year later, ACCCE was caught sending Congress fraudulent letters opposing federal climate legislation and pretending to be from veterans, women’s and civil rights groups. The incident led many members to leave the organization, but Peabody remains a member to this day.

“Its whole mission was to stop climate regulations but pretend that they were in favor of clean coal, which, of course, doesn’t exist,” said Davies.

Peabody Energy filed for bankruptcy protection in 2016, the same year carbon dioxide levels hit 400 parts per million. Eight other coal companies have filed for bankruptcy this year. Even as the Trump administration has promised a coal resurgence and rolled back Obama-era regulations, the industry’s profitability continues to experience a downward slide. If the slogan “Coal Knew” ever does take off, it’s unclear who’ll be left to sue.

Illustration by Rebecca Zisser, with photos from Getty.

Do actors have a moral responsibility in choosing the roles they portray?

Actor and all-round star Parvathy Thiruvothu minced no words while discussing this topic at a roundtable discussion on Film Companion as she picked apart exactly what was wrong with films such as Kabir Singh and Arjun Reddy and the misogynistic characters they glorified.

Arjun Reddy hero Vijay Devarakonda was also part of the discussion, which included Alia Bhatt, Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh, Manoj Bajpayee, Ayushmann Khurrana and Vijay Sethupathi (we’re all for more roundtables featuring actors from different Indian film industries, btw. Excellent idea).

Parvathy spoke about how these films and characters can impact viewers, drawing from her own experience of feeling for years that such passive-aggressive and abusive behaviour was acceptable in her own personal life.

She also elaborated on how such behaviour gets normalised. 

“When a man is being misogynistic and abusive and you show that in a way that incites applause in the audience, then that’s glorification. At the same time, (if) you make the audience think (about) whether he’s done the right thing or not, then you’re collaborating with the audience. There there is cinema, there is a dialogue. But the other one is almost spoonfeeding you that this is okay.

I remember sitting through such a film in theatre as a teenager and squirming, but at the same time, everyone else is clapping. I was very confused. ‘Is it normal? Is it okay?’ And then it reflected in my personal life too.”

The discussion on Arjun Reddy—the massively successful film and its Hindi remake polarised viewers, its Tamil remake released just last week—began because of Bajpayee’s praise for the film despite the many criticisms of its politics.

“But it engaged you as a film and that’s what matters to the audience,” he said.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on Twitter, Facebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

Parvathy compared Arjun Reddy and Kabir Singh to Joker and explained why she thought they were different.

“Arjun Reddy and Kabir Singh had the visual grammar of glorification, Joker did not. At no point did I look at the character Joaquin (Phoenix) played (and think) ‘Arre yaar, I totally agree with you. You must kill everyone’.”

“We can watch a tragedy and leave it there, without feeling inspired to follow it. Whereas if you’re telling there is no passion in a relationship without slapping each other and I see the comments on YouTube where people are resonating and engaging with that, there is also, you can see, engaging with that in a massive, mob-like manner. Where you’re inciting violence, that’s kind of murky,” she added.

Joker’s critics would disagree with Parvathy, given the climate of white supremacy and gun violence in the US, as well as interviews with the actor and director which didn’t think through how their film’s message would be received by its (many) male viewers.

But her remarks especially hit the mark in a room filled with stars from Bollywood, an industry that does not look kindly at all on outspoken people.

READ:How Parvathy’s Getting Away With Turning Malayalam Cinema On Its Head

Did Devarakonda respond?

Glad you asked.

His very emo contribution to this debate was, “I think the world is fucked. By making a better film, can I save it? I just see it going downhill.”

Ok, I’m being facetious. That was not his entire statement, but it might as well have been.

On social responsibility, Devarakonda said, “It’s too much of a responsibility to take. Because just a film doesn’t decide your behaviour. It’s your family, schooling, parenting — multiple things will lead a person to behave a particular way. It can’t be ‘I saw it in a film, chalo I’ll do it.’”

“I can’t make films for everybody’s personal lives. The director is making what he truly believes in and I bought it completely and I thought it was very balanced and I did it,” he added.

There was a clear divide in the room as Bajpayee backed Devarakonda, while Padukone and Khurrana stepped into emphasise the influence of cinema.

Khurrana said fame automatically made actors opinion leaders and influential.

Padukone added, “In our country, cinema has the power to influence... Whether we like it or not, cinema and cricket are the two most influential things. You’ve got to do that responsibly or not, that’s a choice each one has to make individually.”

These discussions can often devolve into platitudes and generalised statements that end with no one quite taking a stand. So it was refreshing to see two Bollywood stars attempting to back Parvathy’s strong words without withering away.  

Anupama Chopra, who was moderating the discussion, unfortunately wrapped up this topic with, “This is an eternal debate. It’s a very personal take.”

Parvathy’s comments won’t come as a surprise to anyone who has followed her career trajectory. She is a great actor who thinks seriously about her characters. She has categorically stated she will not do films that propagate patriarchy or misogyny. She unabashedly calls herself a feminist and has publicly taken on directors and actors for glorifying misogyny in face of massive online abuse.

She has stood in solidarity with a fellow actor, who was assaulted. and joined ranks with other women in the Malayalam film industry to form the Women in Cinema Collective. The WCC recently named its film society after PK Rosy, Malayalam cinema’s first woman actor who was ostracised for being from a marginalised caste.

We stan. 

You can watch the exchange below, starting at the 18.14 mark —

You know you’re in Peak Bengaluru when you visit the Colive Signature tower on the Outer Ring Road near Marathalli: Bougie interiors in bright pastel shades, a plethora of security cameras in every common area, a Yulu dock with several Miracle electric scooters parked next to a locker by K’s Faabcare, an app-controlled laundry experience, and a Big Basket vending machine from which you can buy chips, biscuits, cup-noodles, and Red Bull.

Everything is accessed through an app. Make your selection and make your payments to manage everything, including your rent at the start of each month. Residents enter by entering an access code, or just looking at the face recognition camera. 

Visitors like me — there for a tour organised by the company — walk to a small reception area to the side of the steps, where Swiggy and Amazon packages await their owners. 

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on Twitter, Facebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

A passage behind the reception leads through two small conference rooms, a ‘coworking space’ and a cinema room, to a large cafeteria, and then a garden with benches and tables.

Inside, there are mixed floors with shared and private rooms — 280 beds — that can best be described as fancy upscale versions of engineering college dorms for techies, caught in Bengaluru’s self-contained bubble of isolation, but pining for their engineering college hostels.

In this city, everyone is used to living off their screen. Need food? Open Swiggy. Going for a movie? Get the ticket on BookMyShow, and get there with an Ola. Need cigarettes at night? No need to leave home, just Dunzo it.

Coliving just seems to complete the circle: Now you never need to speak to your landlord either. Just book a bed over the Internet, track your electricity usage and pay your rent through the company’s app, and if a lightbulb needs replacing or a tap fixing, just raise a ticket.

Yet those who live in such accommodation say the lure is just the opposite — companionship in a city of screen-staring out-of-towners.

“How do you make new friends? Everyone that I knew worked with me, so I’d see them in the morning, sit with them all day, then go out for a drink together, and in the bar, we’re talking about the same problems from work,” said Mayank Sharma from Delhi, who works with a health-tech startup near Sarjapura in Bengaluru, and lives in a similar arrangement. 

Housing and community

“The concept of co-living is derived from the renting philosophy that millennials ascribe to where they are willing to share living spaces, utilities etc in order to make an affordable rental decision and be part of a community,” said Rohit Kapoor, CEO of Oyo’s New Real Estate business, which includes Oyo Life coliving. 

“Community living allows residents to mingle and interact with like-minded individuals,” he added.

Coliving — like coworking — feels like a branding exercise in hyping up the real estate business for the tech set. Just like office rentals have been around for a long time, paying guest accommodation or “PGs” are not a new idea. But a number of companies, like CoHo, Colive, Simply Guest, and Oyo Life, are emphasising the difference by focusing on amenities, apps, and the promise of community. Free Wi-Fi, meals, game rooms, CCTVs for security and events are selling points. 

As people move around the country chasing tech jobs, finding a house to rent, navigating challenges like “veg only”, “no bachelors”, “no visitors of the opposite gender” are big problems. Tech companies promise a solution.

One Signature occupant, who asked not to share her name, said that she moved into the building a month ago after colleagues at work told her about the service. 

“I was living in a friend’s house because I’d just moved to Bangalore, and it is impossible to find a decent house here,” she said. “Landlords hear that I’m a single woman who wants to rent a flat by herself and they start to say families only. 

“Security is also a problem—people ask for a 2 lakh deposit when I’m trying to pay less than Rs 20,000 in rent, do they think if they shake me lakhs will fall out?”

Sharma, the techie from Delhi, said that he was feeling stuck in a rut in Bengaluru, cut-off from friends and family and familiar food, until he moved into the Colive building.

“I was initially renting a flat with two office mates, but then one of them moved out, and when we didn’t find a new roommate after two months, we decided to give notice and look for a smaller place. Instead, I found this place, and it has been good, it’s helped connect with new people,” Sharma added.

For Sharma, the common gaming room and the chance to meet people and play a game of FIFA without having to approach total strangers was the selling point. “I didn’t really know what to do so I went to the top floor and saw a guy playing FIFA. I was watching the game and he asked if I’d join. I did, and we’ve found a group of regulars who will come back after work, and just chill and play some football,” he said.

The football, it is worth noting, is played on a screen not on a pitch.

What about privacy?

While the companies promoting coliving are understandably keen to emphasis the various amenities on offer, this new form of cohabitation is perhaps best understood by what isn’t on offer — the privacy to hook up.

Many of the companies didn’t think of this when starting out — despite this being, for many young people, one of the most compelling reasons to move to a place of their own.

A Colive representative, for example, tells us that twin-sharing double rooms are the bulk of the company’s offerings, but it’s fastest growing segment now is private single rooms. Similarly, the YouTube ad for Guesture talks about private rooms — preferred by managers living alone in Bangalore, away from their family, Guesture’s website says.

“The double room is the biggest chunk of our configurations,” said Suresh Rangarajan, founder of Colive. “In the sharing room, you’ll have a roommate but the layout helps maintain privacy. The private room, you see couples, both live-in couples, and young married couples without kids, renting together. And there’s also an increasing number of people taking private rooms for themselves, so we might make smaller private rooms as well.”

Privacy doesn’t come cheap: while the rooms in coliving homes span a fairly wide range of prices, ranging from as low as Rs 5,999 per bed in some of Oyo’s listings, to Rs 13,000 per bed in Colive’s luxury offering, Colive Signature. There’s also the private room goes up to Rs 25,000 — the cost of renting a three bedroom apartment in parts of Bengaluru.

But then that three bedroom apartment is unlikely to come with its own cinema room, PS4 and VR headset.

A demanding business

“Living near your office in functional, stylish, technology enabled spaces is the ground on which this is built. Upgrade your lifestyle, and live well in the age of social media,” said Colive founder Rangarajan. “Young people have to keep moving from one place to another, without the hassle of furnishing and upkeep. This is the Uber, Swiggy economy.”

But online, there seems to be a fair amount of criticism of Colive. While Twitter has relatively fewer complaints, Quora, which is very popular in India especially among tech-workers, you’ll see many posts that are criticising Colive for poor service, excessive electricity fees, and unresponsiveness to complaints.

While the companies we spoke to stressed that they’re focused on these issues, and the people we spoke to living in these rooms didn’t share the same issues, given the wide range of housing the company manages, it’s quite possible that things vary across buildings.

“Customers can be very demanding, and they want washing machines, TVs, Wi-Fi… if any of this is not working in a co-living space, they will immediately let you know, and you will get shouted at on social media,” said Amit Agarwal, Founder and CEO, NoBroker. “It is not easy and it is very expensive.”

Agarwal, whose company focuses on buying and renting said, “co-living is a growing business, but the challenge that companies in this space will have to deal with is churn. From a customer perspective, you would love to have a place without having to manage the extra challenges.”

“But young people will make friends and then go out and rent on their own. And if the tenants churn, then the owners of the building will also churn out of the platform,” he added.

However, he also felt that the business is growing fast, and although it’s not going to replace renting, especially for families, this could serve as “starter housing” for young professionals in the early stages of their career, when mobility is very important. 

“Earlier a young professional could only choose a PG, which was a sub-standard solution, and the price would be almost the same. But these people are still a much smaller part of the market than families,” Agarwal said.

“What is the real difference between a PG and a coliving,” mused another Colive executive. “It’s the community, the sense of belonging. It’s got to be more than the local WhatsApp group to discuss problems and plans. It’s something we’re trying to figure out, and there are different ideas. Maybe we can do a newsletter, but run by residents who are interested in this, so it becomes a community model and brings people together.”

WASHINGTON — A 19-year-old Indian-American student was sexually assaulted and then strangulated to death in Chicago, police said about a brutal murder that has shocked the community in the United States.

Ruth George, originally hailing from Hyderabad and an honours student at the University of Illinois, was found dead in the back seat of a family-owned vehicle in a campus garage on Saturday.

The assailant, Donald Thurman, 26, was arrested Sunday from a Chicago metro station. He is not associated with the university. On Monday, he was formally charged with first-degree murder and aggravated sexual assault for killing George.

The medical examiner ruled George’s death a homicide by strangulation.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on Twitter, Facebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

For whenever you’re feeling: When you need an extra boost of energy; when you’re tired; when you’re trying to be kind to your body; when you’re working out.

What it is: We all know we should be drinking more water — eight 8-ounce glasses of water per day to be exact. Our doctors tell us, science tells us, and even our co-workers tell us (is it just us or does anyone else find random reusable water bottles on their desk?).

But, we have busy lives, and sometimes our lives interfere with all that water we’re supposed to be drinking. Or, sometimes we don’t feel like drinking water ’cause it’s not the best tasting drink (that’s why the powers that be invented lemon).

But drinking just that extra glass or bottle of water can make a huge difference in how you feel.

How it can help: Put simply: If you stay hydrated, you will feel a lot better. 

Many studies have proven conclusively that even mild dehydration (1-3 per cent of body weight) can impair your mood, memory, critical thinking, and brain performance. Yep, your brain needs to be hydrated, as well as the rest of your body (especially if you’re physically active), and this goes for people of all ages, from children to seniors.

Because our bodies are made up of 60 per cent water, the effects of dehydration can be immediate. 

A 2012 study found that mild dehydration (1.36 per cent) after exercise impaired young women’s mood and concentration, and increased the number of headaches, and a 2011 study found that mild dehydration affected participants’ working memory and increased feelings of anxiety and fatigue.

If you feel a headache coming on, grab a glass of water.

Research shows that dehydration can cause headaches and migraines, and studies show that drinking adequate amounts of water can relieve headaches that are caused by dehydration. But, it’s important to note that headaches that are not caused by dehydration probably won’t find relief the more water you drink.

If you’re feeling tired, water can literally boost your energy. 

Studies show that dehydration can cause increased fatigue, anger, confusion, and decreased vigour. When you drink water, you’re helping your heart stay healthy, which imrpoves your energy levels.

“Your heart is constantly working, pumping about 2,000 gallons of blood a day,” The Heart Foundation notes on its website. “By staying hydrated – that is, by drinking more water than you are losing – you are helping your heart do its job.”

According to The Heart Foundation, people who are most at risk for dehydration are the elderly, those with chronic illnesses, children, and athletes. 

Signs of mild to moderate dehydration include thirst, dry mouth, dark yellow urine, and headache, while signs of severe dehydration include not urinating, very dark yellow urine, irritability, dizziness, rapid heartbeat, and listlessness.

And while things like a mild headache and fatigue don’t seem that concerning, dehydration can lead to serious conditions such as heart attack or heat stroke.

The best thing about this little habit is that it’s so easy to do. Get yourself a reusable water bottle (we like S’Well bottles) or a glass, and drink up that good ol’ H2O. If you don’t like the taste of plain water, there are plenty of infused water ideas, such as adding lemon, cucumber, apple, mint, orange, and strawberry.

There are also other ways to get water without drinking the stuff on its own, like an herbal or non-caffeinated tea, and coconut water. And high-water content foods, such as watermelon, strawberries, cantaloupe, and peaches, provide lots of healthy hydration.

Where you can do it: Have a bottle of water with you wherever you go! Keep a bottle at work, keep a glass on your bedside table, and throw a travel bottle in your bag when you’re out and about.

Other ways to easily keep water top of mind is to keep a glass of wide by your bed so that you can take a few sips before you go to sleep and when you wake up; take a few sips before every meal; keep a big bottle at work so you don’t have to keep getting up to refill a glass; set a deadline for every eight ounces, and make a promise to yourself to drink a glass of water for every cup of coffee you drink.

How it makes us feel: We really do feel more energized and awake when we drink a lot of water. Bonus: drinking lots of water also helps us feel full, so we’re not always snacking on junk food.

Read more:

Infused water recipes

How much water should you really drink?

Best reusable water bottles

And that’s your tip of the day.

Also on HuffPost:

If you’re a makeup lover planning your holiday lewk, your lipstick is going to need intense staying power to keep looking flawless through dinner. Whether you prefer a budget-friendly drugstore option or a luxury lippie, these lipsticks are formulated to last through all kinds of food and drinks. 

HuffPost may receive a share from purchases made via links on this page. Prices and availability subject to change.

AHMEDABAD, Gujarat — This November Apple TV+, Apple’s highly anticipated Rs 99 per month streaming platform, went live with a banquet of original shows and movies unavailable on any existing service you may already be subscribed to. 

And since Apple doesn’t have a back catalogue of popular shows, you’ll probably have to continue with your existing Netflix, Hotstar or Amazon Prime subscription even if you do sign on Apple TV+.

It’s the kind of conundrum cord-cutters have grown used to: 2019 was the year when nearly every entertainment house built exclusive silos to host their own productions. On 11 November, Disney launched its streaming service locking down a string of popular shows and movies behind a new paywall. A few months earlier, NBC, in the run up to the launch of its forthcoming streaming platform, pulled the license for the TV show most people stream on Netflix, The Office.  

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on Twitter, Facebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

As the number of subscription streaming services continues to proliferate, the internet is returning to a work-around from the early years of broadband connectivity — piracy. 

A study by the network equipment manufacturer, Sandvine revealed that the use of BitTorrent, a popular tool file-sharing tool, is climbing across the globe, with significant gains especially in the Asia Pacific and Europe.

On the one hand, the fragmentation of online streaming providers, the rising cost of individual streaming services, restricted international distribution of new releases, and the lack of a la carte plans has made illegal streaming and downloading attractive again. On the other hand, a new generation of file-swapping services have made sharing pirated content easier than ever before. 

“Between localized access and fragmentation of services, we are going back to the days when BitTorrent was 45% of all traffic on many networks on the upstream,” said Cam Cullen, VP Marketing at Sandvine.

No longer do you have to dig your way through the internet’s darkest corners to unearth the right torrents. A straightforward Google search for the pirated file you’re looking for can even land you on a Medium.com article. 

New Streams

While traditional hubs like The Pirate Bay continue to take the heat from regulatory bodies, pirates have flocked to destinations which no one would associate with torrents. 

Social sites like Facebook have been exploited to share copies of bootlegged movies. On Telegram, there are hundreds of groups — some with over a million members — where you can easily download the latest Netflix series. Since Telegram allows admins to upload files of up to 1.5GB size, you don’t even have to visit a shady website. Pirates have also inundated Google’s custom map creator tool, My Maps with links to illegal content. 

“Since I only regularly watch The Office and Parks and Recreation, I have subscribed to Amazon Prime Video. For times I do want to watch anything else like Sacred Games or Game of Thrones, I end up downloading them on Telegram because it doesn’t make sense for me to pay hundreds of rupees for just one show,” said a student who is a member of one of the many download groups on Telegram and an active member of Reddit’s r/piracy community. 

Then there are services like Kodi and Plex which have made pirating as easy as logging in to a video-streaming app. 

Let’s start with Plex first. It enables you or any authorized person to access your digital media library remotely. You can use it to play your video archives from your phone or view that huge personal photo collection you’ve in your external hard drive. For piracy, people just set up a Plex server with all the pirated shows and movies they own and then distribute the credentials on the internet. 

Whereas, Kodi is an open-source software for streaming devices. While it has a legitimate app store with official clients for services such as YouTube, its flexibility has also let illegal channels run loose. Owners of Kodi-powered media players have the option to sideload these channels and enjoy an endless catalog of free movies, TV shows, live sports, and a whole lot more. On some marketplaces, you can even buy Kodi devices that are preloaded with pirated add-ons and utilities. 

A Kodi spokesperson argued that because Widevine, the standard Digital Rights Manager provider, doesn’t offer licenses for open-source platforms, users of platforms such as Kodi and Raspberry Pi have to resort to piracy even if they’re willing to pay.  

“The more companies like Google lock down the freedom of choice (and millions of users who use platforms such as Raspberry Pi, Linux, etc) they are pushed towards piracy, even if they are a paying customer,” the spokesperson said in an email.

“There are two main paths for piracy: BitTorrent and pirate IPTV services. IPTV is ‘easier’ for the masses, especially when you can buy Kodi boxes and subscribe online. Both will grow significantly over the next few years until we see a collapsing and aggregation of services.”, said Sandvine’s Cullen. 

However, The Pirate Bay’s founder, Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi believes platforms like Kodi — which rely on a centralized server — are a step back for the industry since they are much easier to shut down. 

“Most of the piracy today is rather alternative streaming sites than normal file-sharing. So it’s centralized compared to before when people had actual copies of the material in questions themselves. That means that takedowns of pirate streaming services makes sense,” Peter told HuffPost India. “I hope people go back to file sharing instead to make sure this is less vulnerable.”

Pushbank

The comeback hasn’t been one without retaliation either. Governments and companies have cracked down on illegal channels by taking down several websites and imposed stricter algorithmic blockades. 

Facebook recently blocked links to The Pirate Bay on its news feed as well as in private via Messenger. Google also actively scrutinizes public Drive links that receive too many visitors and pulls the plugs on the ones that infringe copyrights. 

In Singapore, sellers of pirated Android streaming boxes were charged and fined S$1200. Earlier this month, the ACE, Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, a coalition of multimedia corporations from around the world, successfully brought down two of the most prolific piracy sites called Openload and Streamango. 

Reports suggest that by 2022, every production house will have its own streaming service and with each of them spending most of their resources on exclusives, piracy’s newfound spike isn’t expected to drop anytime soon. The world of streaming services is gradually turning into what it set out to put an end to ― cable TV. You will soon have loads of services (channels) each with an exclusive catalog and a separate price tag.

In the long run, Peter from Pirate Bay suggested that the video streaming industry will likely go the way of streaming music where most artists and albums are available across streaming services like Spotify, Tidal and Apple Music. 

“Having lots of different apps, different accounts, and payment systems makes people really annoyed. This is the thing that the music industry did a bit better by making deals internally,” Peter said. “They did already divvy up the market shares between each other, being an oligopoly of mafias instead of one huge maffia which the movie studios/streaming giants are trying to become.”

Bindu Ammini, one of the first two women to enter Sabarimala temple after the Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict, was on Tuesday attacked with chilli and pepper powder outside the police commissioner’s office in Kochi, Kerala.

Bindu’s friend Kanakadurga, who had entered the shrine with her on January 2 this year, was recently at the centre of a massive misinformation campaign on social media in Kerala.

NDTV’s Sneha Mary Koshy reported that Bindu was sprayed with chilli by protesters outside the commissioner’s office.  

While Mathrubhumi and Malayala Manorama reported Bindu was in the city as part of the six-member team led by Trupti Desai who planned to visit the shrine, The NewsMinute said video of the attack showed Bindu asking the attacker why he assumed she was going to Sabarimala. 

Activist Trupti Desai, who arrived in the state early Tuesday, had been taken to the city police commissionerate from the Kochi airport. She approached the police seeking security for her group’s visit to the temple. 

Desai told the media they preferred to visit the shrine on November 26 as it was Constitution Day.

She said she had come with a copy of the 2018 order of the Supreme Court permitting entry of women of all age groups into the Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala.

“I will leave Kerala only after offering prayers at the shrine,” the activist said, PTI quoted.

The Supreme Court has referred its 2018 Sabarimala verdict to a larger bench for review, but has not stayed its previous order. 

The Kerala government has said it would not provide protection to women in traditionally barred age group unless they get a court order.

(This is a developing story.)

Phoebe Waller-Bridge revealed exactly how her character in Fleabag came to be, why the Hot Priest was Fleabag’s perfect match, and where she imagines everyone’s favourite mess to be now.

The star, a multi-Emmy Award-winner who wrote the TV series based on her one-woman play, talked about the projects at New York City’s Town Hall with journalist Taffy Brodesser-Akner over the weekend.

“I needed to see that character. And I wanted to act that character. And then I discovered that I could write that character,” Phoebe said, explaining the character Fleabag.

“I feel a sort of burn when I’m writing something that feels truthful and a bit dangerous and writing the play was just a big ol’ burn. And it was driven by that sense of rage. What if I just said onstage what I say to my friend? Or if I just express some of the rage that I have, but turn it up?”

Writing and performing Fleabag was an effort to “stop me becoming her”, Phoebe continued. 

The TV series breaks the so-called fourth wall between the actor and audience because Fleabag needed to “be witnessed”, she explained.

“In some ways, the presence of the camera is societal pressure to be something all the time,” she said. “And so, she had the hair, the coat and the lipstick, and she was sorted all the time. It follows you everywhere.” 

She continued: “That feeling of being watched and whoever that is or whatever that is for you, I feel like in some ways that’s a difficult thing for us because we need to be witnessed. But at the same time it’s a poisoned chalice because you need to not be witnessed sometimes. You need to be on your own sometimes, but sometimes when we’re not witnessed, we feel like we’re nothing.

“The camera comes into her life and witnesses her so she can put on this, show. [Fleabag] just puts on a show like we all do in life, all the time.”

This helps explain why the Hot Priest, played brilliantly by Andrew Scott in the series, was Fleabag’s perfect match.

“When we meet the priest, for me, God is that for him,” Phoebe said. “I always felt like they are a match for each other because she has the camera all the time going like, ’Tell us more stuff. Don’t give this away.′ He’s got the same thing coming from God. So, they’re both people who have got this very, very tangible sense of something watching them.”

In response to a question about the animated fox that appears at the end of the series two finale, after repeated earlier mentions of the Hot Priest’s fear of foxes, Phoebe said it was just a “random bit.” 

“I was as surprised by the fox appearing in the scene as anybody,” she said candidly.

“The best feeling is when I’m writing away and, honestly, I just started laughing because this thing happened. I was writing and he was like, ‘Ah! What is that?’ and I was like, ’I don’t know what it is, let’s find out what it is,’” she said, adding that it’s up to the audience to decide what the fox really means.

As for where Fleabag is now, Phoebe quipped that “she lives by the sea in a bungalow,” and that the Hot Priest came back for her on a donkey. Then she added: “I don’t know.”

“This is one of the most sentimental things I’ve ever felt and I’ve ever said, and I’m sorry if it makes you feel sick, but it’s true,” she said, explaining the emotional wallop she felt during her final two performances of Fleabag when it was a one-woman show at Edinburgh’s Fringe Festival.

“I was performing the end and I did start to get really emotional and I was suddenly really hit by the whole journey of the character and then I did, I felt her go. And it was such a lovely feeling because it was like, ‘Ah, we’ve done the right thing we’ve ended the story at the right time,’” she said.

“It was a really magical feeling, feeling her go. I don’t actually know where she is now and I think that’s the right thing for both of us.”

Phoebe’s revelation that Fleabag has left her doesn’t come as too much of a surprise. She had previously confirmed that the series will not return for a third season, telling Entertainment Tonight earlier this year that “it does feel like the story is complete” and that the way it ended felt “right.”

So, if you’ll excuse us, we need to go re-binge both seasons.

The six-part #PaisaPolitics series by Nitin Sethi, published last week by HuffPost India, revealed that the Narendra Modi government told a number of lies—to Parliament, Election Commission and the Indian public—in its hurry to push through the controversial electoral bonds scheme. More than Rs6,000 crore worth of these bonds have been sold so far, and we know that the BJP pocketed 95% of the Rs222 crore sold in the first tranche.

The series, based on documents accessed by transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd), revealed that not only did the government overrule the Reserve Bank of India’s serious objections to the scheme, it also misled Election Commission officials on key features of these bonds. The government’s oft-repeated claim that bond donors are completely anonymous was also a lie, as was its initial justification for the scheme—that donors asked for a secret funding channel due to fear of political retribution. 

Perhaps most worryingly, the documents exposed how often the rules governing the scheme were bent with impunity, and according to political convenience—the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) asked the finance ministry to open an illegal sale window just ahead of the Karnataka state assembly election in May 2018. This so-called exception was later used as a precedent to open a similar window ahead of other critical assembly elections later that year.

#PaisaPolitics also found that SBI accepted expired bonds worth Rs10 crore that were sold in this same illegal window, after getting the finance ministry’s sign-off. This meant that soon after the Karnataka election resulted in a hung assembly, an unnamed political party, or parties, was allowed to redeem Rs10 crore against the rules.

Now, Sethi has uploaded the entire tranche of documents accessed by Batra under the RTI.
You can access them here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/n8dtbhw9c1sc2ax/AAA6xdFMlRQklUHNrTVjqQ1xa?dl=0 

I’ve tried to pinpoint the moment I transitioned from a carefree child to a depressed teen, but I can’t. There was no event or “incident.” Instead, my personality just faded. I was a light on a dimmer ― an incandescent bulb that slowly began to die out. But the pieces I have managed to put together give me glimpses into a troubled past. When I was 12, I became self-conscious. I was 100 pounds, which was 10 pounds too many, and I wore oversized shirts and ill-fitting pants to hide myself and my body.

My clothes became my armor, a shield separating me from the world.

In eighth grade, I lost my voice — not literally but figuratively — because while my girlfriends were thinking about boys and graduation parties, I was thinking about moroseness and death, and these thoughts were not “normal,” or so I was told. The first time I shared my fears with my friends, they pulled away. They told me I was “dark” and “dramatic” and that I shouldn’t take life so seriously ... and I listened. I shut up. I decided it was better to fake it than have no friends. 

I withdrew. I went to school and back home, where I watched TV while lying on the couch or in my bed. I slept a lot and ate very little. I started skipping breakfast and picking at my lunches, and by high school, I was sad. An ominous and oppressive weight sat on my chest. Breathing hurt. Being hurt. Living hurt. I was stuck in a windowless room of misery that (I thought) I had constructed, and the guilt became overwhelming. I hated the fact I couldn’t complete the most menial tasks, like brushing my hair or teeth. I also felt broken and “crazy.” Years of living with this in silence made me feel completely alone. As a result, I tried to take my life. I was 17 at the time.

The good news is that, shortly afterward, I sought help, and I saw a doctor and got a diagnosis. I learned I had — and still have — mental health disorders. While I have become comfortable saying the words, “I’m sick. I have an illness. I have bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and I am depressed,” I still struggle to ask for help. 

I’ve hidden my mental illness from those I love most.

Of course, I know that sounds silly. My husband has always known about my mental health struggles, which has been instrumental in my caring for myself, but it’s been hard for me to tell anyone else. My friends and family care about me, love me and want to help me. They have told me so, time and time again. But depression is a fickle disease — a tricky disease — and, like most mental illnesses, it warps your thoughts. It makes you believe that you are not worth caregiving or support. It makes you believe you are not good enough, smart enough or interesting enough.

In my head, I hear: “You are hopeless. You are helpless. You are weak. You ruin everything. No one loves you. No one cares.” Plus, I don’t know what to say. I am sad, but there is no reason. I feel empty and numb, but I cannot tell people what that means or why.

I am afraid of rejection ― of bearing my soul and being minimized, shot down or ignored ― as I was in eighth grade. That is a pain I’m not sure I can handle. When I am sick, the risk feels too great.

I worry my “mood” will be a burden. I don’t want to hurt my friends or bring them down, so I laugh and smile. I go out in spite of the sadness and pain. The last time I contemplated suicide, I got a blow-out and spent the evening on Broadway. I hid my illness with big hair and a bold lip. Mascara masked my misery ... and my tears.

I worry that if others know the depths of my illnesses they will think I am “crazy.” I will be talked about, mocked and judged, because I have been. Friends and family members have suggested I’m “unbalanced.” I’ve been told “it’s all in your head,” and that hurts. It’s unhelpful to be in the throes of my struggles and to have people I love tell me I’m making it up.

This doesn’t just happen in my personal life, either. It affects me professionally, as well. At my previous job, my mental health issues backed me into a corner. They led me to believe I had to suck it up or go. 

I feel an immense amount of guilt for feeling this way. I have a great husband; two happy, healthy and adoring children; a beautiful home; an amazing job; and there is food in our fridge. I know I am #blessed. But things cannot make me happy, and people cannot fix my problem because it is more than a problem.

I have, and live with, an illness that society still struggles to understand.

Make no mistake: We have made great strides in mental health care. Less than 60 years ago, institutionalization was “the norm,” and in the ’40s and ’50s, lobotomies were common. According to Wired, the radical procedure was used to “cure” more than 40,000 mental health patients. And while doctors now rely on medication and therapy to treat mental health disorders, the way these illnesses are discussed is still problematic. We talk about mental illness in muffled voices. We use terms like “is the victim of.” We make excuses to avoid talking about our conditions. I would rather say “I have a headache” than “I’m just really freakin’ sad.” Plus, there is a general lack of education.

Growing up, I knew boo-boos needed to be cleaned and cared for but moods should be swallowed. I heard things like “don’t cry,” “stop crying,” “don’t be so dramatic,” and “relax; it’s not that bad,” and these actions perpetuate stigma. They contribute to the mental health crisis. According to the World Health Organization, more than 450 million people live with mental illness, yet most never get treatment. Nearly two-thirds of people with a known mental disorder never seek help.

That said, there is help and hope. I have a psychologist, a psychiatrist, and I take medication. Even though it’s hard, I speak openly about my mental health struggles — I am a writer, advocate and the founder of Greater Than: Illness, a nonprofit organization that aims to empower children and young adults struggling with mental illness — and most days, my smile is genuine. My illnesses are managed. However, I’d be lying if I said things were perfect.

I still struggle with fears of inadequacy and have a hard time opening up. I can speak publicly about mental health any day, but being honest with those I love is harder. I feel vulnerable and raw, but I know these fears are symptoms of my illness and my past so I work with my therapist to feel worthy of time and love. I have removed the word “fine” from my vocabulary and use “okay” sparingly (i.e. I use it to make and accept plans but not to describe my mood). I’m trying to be more truthful about how I’m really feeling when a loved one asks. And while I cannot always explain my feelings, I am getting better about admitting when things are off.

I’m trying to be more open because I know my loved ones also want what’s best for me and my mental health. I am able to say things like “I’m having a hard day” — and that’s huge. It’s a start, and when I say that, my family and friends believe me.

So if you are hurting, know you are not bad. You are not crazy, and you are not alone. There is help. There is hope, and there is support all around you. Your friends and loved ones care. Have the conversations with them to try and figure out how you can feel supported through your struggles. 

If you or someone you know needs help, mail icall@tiss.edu or dial 022-25521111 (Monday-Saturday, 8am to 10pm) to reach iCall, a psychosocial helpline set up by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS).

Have a compelling first-person story or experience you want to share? Send your story description to pitch@huffpost.com.