SRINAGAR (Reuters) - Five people were killed in a gun battle between members of a Pakistani militant group and Indian security forces in disputed Kashmir on Sunday as India intensified a security crackdown, including detaining more than 160 separatists this weekend. 

Three members of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) — the Pakistan-based group that claimed a 14 February suicide car bombing that killed 40 Indian paramilitary police — died in the shootout, as did a senior police officer and an Indian army soldier, according to the Indian military and police.

Three more soldiers were wounded in the battle in Turigam, a village in South Kashmir’s Kulgam district, defence and police officials said. Two of the dead militants were from India, and one a foreigner, said a senior police officer who asked not to be identified.

Indian authorities have killed at least eight JeM militants and detained around 50 militants, sympathizers and their relatives since the bomb attack, which also sparked the roundup of separatists which India says is needed to head off trouble ahead of a general election to be held by May.

Most of those rounded up over the last two days were linked to the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI).

“Since JeI has a wider network across Kashmir and they are mobilising anti-India protests, their arrest could help in curbing such protests ahead of elections,” the senior police officer said.

One well-known separatist leader, Abdul Gani Bhat, was placed under house arrest, according to his political party.

Separatists called a strike to protest against the detentions. Many shops, petrol stations, and businesses closed, with few people and vehicles on streets in sensitive areas, except for troop patrols.

In some areas of the main city of Srinagar, the government limited the movement of people and vehicles.

“The restrictions have been imposed as a precautionary measure to avoid any untoward incident,” the police said.

Fuel supplies low

The government of Jammu and Kashmir said fuel rationing had been introduced in the Kashmir Valley where there was only enough gasoline for one day, diesel for four days and no liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

The government said it would seek to increase supplies to the region and that shortages are the result of road blockages after the suicide bomb attack.

Indian paramilitary troops in riot gear arrived in strength at first light, said Shakeel Ahmad, a resident of Nowhatta in the Srinagar district.

“At places, they have blocked the main roads with steel barricades and concertina wire,” he said.

State Governor Satya Pal Malik called on residents not to believe “rumours of any extreme nature”. The government said an increase in police numbers was to prevent candidates and voters from being intimidated into not standing or voting in the general election.

Separatist leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who chairs the Hurriyat Conference of separatist groups, said arbitrary arrests and jailing of leaders, activists and young people for their political beliefs had happened across Kashmir for 30 years.

“Intimidating activists and leadership will not deter them from their path, nor will it stop people from demanding the resolution of the Kashmir dispute through self-determination,” he said.

Reuters’ telephone calls to the Indian home ministry to seek comment went unanswered.

Tensions raised

The suicide bomb attack has raised tensions between India and Pakistan which both claim Kashmir in full but rule it in part. India blames Pakistan for harbouring militant groups operating in Kashmir, which Pakistan denies.

After the attack, India dropped trade privileges for Pakistan and prepared to send as many as 10,000 more troops to the contested area, according to a home ministry letter seen by Reuters.

The Indian army said that early on Sunday evening Pakistan violated the two nations’ ceasefire at the Rajouri area of the border, through shelling from mortars and small arms fire. Defence spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Devender Anand said the Indian army was “retaliating strongly and effectively”.

Ceasefire violations are not unusual along the border.

A Pakistani security official said Pakistani forces had not initiated any action but had responded to Indian firing.

Kashmir is likely to be a key issue in India’s election, distracting from concerns about how Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party have managed the economy.

Modi has promised a strong response to the attack, saying in a monthly radio broadcast on Sunday that it had caused anguish to all of India.

Modi added that the army had vowed to destroy the militants and those who helped them.

Islamabad has warned it would respond with “full force” if attacked. On Sunday, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi called on India to show restraint or it would put “the entire region’s peace and security at stake”.

India’s Supreme Court will hear a case this week seeking to drop a constitutional provision that bars non-residents from moving to the state of Jammu and Kashmir that encompasses the Muslim-majority region.

If passed, it could further escalate tensions.

Journalist Priya Ramani was on Monday granted bail by a Delhi court in the defamation case filed by former Union minister MJ Akbar.

Ramani was summoned as an accused in the case for levelling allegations of sexual misconduct against Akbar.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal granted the bail on a bond of Rs 10,000.

After the hearing, Ramani told reporters, “The next date, when they will frame the charges against me, is 10 April. After that it will be my turn to tell my story. The truth is my defence.”

According to Bar & Bench, Akbar was not present in court.

Ramani’s lawyer, senior advocate Rebecca John, told the court, “In a complaint case, the complainant should be here but he isn’t.” Ramani has moved the court for exemption from personal appearance. 

Akbar resigned as minister of state for external affairs on 17 October after his name cropped up on social media when he was in Nigeria as the #MeToo campaign raged on in India. 

Denying the allegations, Akbar had termed them “false, fabricated and deeply distressing”.

He then filed a private criminal defamation complaint against Ramani.

On the day he resigned, Ramani tweeted: 

Multiple women have come out with accounts of alleged sexual harassment by Akbar while he was working as a journalist.

(With PTI inputs)

BENGALURU, Karnataka — A healthcare startup, partly-owned by a health insurance third party administrator, tracks your medical prescriptions and stores your information forever, at a time when India has no laws governing what companies can and cannot do with your sensitive medical information.

Sounds like a nightmare?

Doxper, a Bengaluru-based healthcare startup, is just that: the company provides doctors with a bluetooth enabled pen and customised notepad that automatically photographs your prescription as your doctor writes it down and then uploads it to a cloud-based server maintained by the company. Soon after the appointment the patient receives an SMS on their cell phone with their prescription.

Worryingly, the company signs a click-through user-agreement with doctors, but not with the patients whose sensitive medical records the company stores — possibly in violation of rules framed under the Information Technology Act 2000, section 5 of which mandates companies get explicit user consent before gathering patient information.

Doxper stands out thanks to its use of a smart-pen, but the use of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) is growing in India, with input methods ranging from novel solutions like automatic transcription, to tablet devices where the doctor enters all the patient information, to old-fashioned PC software. Some competitors include PurpleDocs, Webmedy, HealthLink, and many more smaller providers.

While companies insist they are simply making it more convenient for patients and doctors to maintain medical histories, collecting such data makes it possible for services like Doxper to build detailed profiles of each patient. In time, patients might find such information may be shared with law enforcement, used against them in the form of higher insurance premiums, or simply sold further to third party companies.

Adam Tanner, a fellow at Harvard’s institute for quantitative social science and author of a new book on the topic, Our Bodies, Our Data, said in an interview that patients generally don’t know that their information — such as diseases, or surgeries — is being bought and sold. This is being anonymised and aggregated, but that isn’t necessarily a guarantee of privacy.

“The problem over time is that as you have more and more information, there’s more and more about people who might be,” Tanner said. In other words, when there’s more anonymous data available, it’s easier to circumvent privacy and identify the people with their data.

Inside Doxper’s business model

Founded in 2015, Doxper has reportedly raised two rounds of funding, with a major backer being Vidal Healthcare, one of the leading health insurance companies in India. Speaking to HuffPost India, Parag Agarwal, who heads Partnerships at Doxper, explained that the company is focused on building up its network of paying customers—doctors—and solving the problem of digitisation.

He added that “Vidal Healthcare is a TPA (Third Party Administrator) and is not an insurer. A TPA only processes claims. They are not authorised to sell insurance products and hence there is no conflict of interest.”

“We have a long term view,” Agarwal said. “We’re not upselling or cross-selling, we won’t try and sell you medicines. The doctor has access to the digital records from his practice, while the patient gets the written prescription, and a soft copy.”

“We are not sharing that data with any other companies,” he added.

Later, in a written response, Agarwal also added that only the doctors and patients have access to their data, and none of the company employees. “To add layers of security, Doxper employs a unique method of storing data in parts across different databases and servers such that patient identifiers, doctor/ hospital details and treatment plans never are accessed together by anyone ever. Further to this, all the data is always stored and transmitted in encrypted format with same levels of security that banks deploy,” he wrote.

Yet a review of Doxper’s expansive Terms of Service and Privacy Policy reveals that Agarwal’s statements should not be taken at face-value. The Privacy Policy, the company notes, may change from time to time — implying that Agarwal’s promises today might not hold good tomorrow. Even the current policy has certain loopholes:

• Section 3 of the Privacy Policy states that even after a “user” deletes their Doxper account, “the User’s data may be anonymized and aggregated, and then may be held by the Company as long as necessary for the Company to provide its Services effectively. The use of such anonymized data will be solely for analytic purposes.” The company does not define what they mean by anonymised data, or what constitutes “analytic purposes”.
• Section 8 warns that the company might hold onto information indefinitely, “Further, such prior information is never completely removed from Our databases due to technical and legal constraints, including stored ‘back up’ systems. Therefore, You should not expect that all of Your personally identifiable information shall be completely removed from our databases in response to Your requests.” 

Doxper’s Terms of Service make clear that:

• The Website/Application and the Company accepts no liability for any errors or omissions, whether on behalf of itself, any Service Providers or third parties, or for any damage caused to the User, the User’s belongings, or any third party, resulting from the use or misuse of any Product purchased or service availed of by the User from the Website/Application.

The “Security” section of Doxper’s Privacy Policy makes the company’s business model explicit: “We treat data as an asset that must be protected against loss and unauthorised access.”

Doxper charges Rs 15,000 per year, which includes the digital pen, a digitisation suite, cloud storage for the doctor’s practice data, and automated SMSes. In addition there are scheduled Excel reports, and doctors can choose from predefined templates for the prescription paper.

At Rs 25,000 per year, doctors can customise the prescriptions, generate on-demand reports, and use multiple digital pens. Right now, the company has over 2,000 doctors using its hardware.

But while its focus today is on increasing the doctors using Doxper, Agarwal agreed that monetising data is something that is on the eventual roadmap. “Selling data is not economically viable,” he said, explaining that instead, companies need to find ways to use data to add more value to their offerings. However, he also cautioned that the market was still very nascent, and that data monetisation would only become a focus once it was saturated. “Data that is anonymised and aggregated could be used, for research only,” he said.

Some of the areas where data could play a role, he added, were in public health, pharma, and insurance. “You don’t have to harass the patient, or offer a discount on the medicines, but you can use the data to understand what gaps are there in the country, and what the people need,” he added.

“We are solving a universal and fundamental problem. Healthcare for an individual often spans multiple decades. Thus, historical records will always be vital for quality care. The sooner healthcare records are digitised in the patient journey, the greater the potential for a seamless ecosystem between providers, payers, patients, and policymakers,” Doxper CEO and co-founder Shailesh Prithani said.

Keeping your data secure

Doxper (and other companies acting in the health space) don’t have to comply with any privacy regulations in India. Therefore, the companies work to maintain compliance with the American Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Karan Vijay Singal, MD India of Startup Genome, which is a data driven policy advisor to governments globally on issues related to bolstering local startup ecosystems, and who has worked in the healthcare and insurance space, told HuffPost India that “HIPAA compliance is necessary for any Health Data related company that is looking to grow in the US, and in the absence of legal provisions in India, is seen as the best possible alternative.”

Singal added that the Digital Information Security in Healthcare Act (DISHA) draft was made public nearly a full year ago, although it has not been passed yet.

In the act, the patients whose data is being processed are seen as the owners of their information. This means that all data, including prescriptions, would belong to the patient, who would have to expressly consent to their data being collected like this.

Doxper also said that doctors are supposed to take the patient’s consent before collecting their data using the system, but this can be in the form of a verbal consent. “They verbally take consent of the patient, and in few cases, have incorporated written consent process as part of prescription template itself,” Agarwal wrote.

Meanwhile, the Draft Data Protection Bill, which was released in July last year, also recognised medical data as highly sensitive, and requiring stringent privacy protections. However, like DISHA, this too remains a work-in-progress that hasn’t seen any progress.

Agarwal said that as of now, these laws were not in place, and added that Doxper was compliant with international standards.

Another industry insider who did not wish to be named said that while properly funded companies would not cut corners, this was not necessarily the case with all companies. “I am not familiar with Doxper,” he said, “but this is a very important issue right now and most people are not aware about it. There is a major market for data, and it’s good that today people are starting to have a heightened sense of concern about privacy and security.”

According to him, personalised medical information is not so relevant to insurance companies. “It could be important for claim settlement, but otherwise it’s not such a big deal. The industry it would really matter to is pharma companies.”

Pharma companies in India are limited in the amount of research they can do, in order to determine trends in medicine buying (and prescribing). “There are maybe 6,000 samples from doctors across India, so if an EMR company can grow to more than that size, with reliable information, this could be very valuable,” he said. “The problem is that this completely violates privacy. Let’s say you do statistical obfuscation to anonymise the data. The pharma company has a direct relationship to the doctors, so they can take this anonymous data, match it with their own data, and figure out which doctor is prescribing what over time.”

Can this be linked to you—and so what?

What’s less clear, according to the industry insiders we spoke to, is whether this data can then be linked down to the patients as well. Doxper’s Agarwal claims that on its platform, this is not possible. Each doctor can see the details of their own patients, and each patient can see their history, but this, he confirmed, is not being shared with others.

The others we spoke to said that it could be theoretically possible, but isn’t being done as far as they know.

However, there are fears that such information could be used in ways that can affect us negatively. Apple reportedly held discussions to work with insurance companies to offer its Apple Watch, which tracks a huge range of health and fitness data. According to reports, such information is highly valuable—while credit card numbers are allegedly sold for $0.25, electronic medical health records could be worth thousands of dollars.

And as companies gather more data on users, they have used them to charge differential rates—one example being Tinder charging users over 30 more money for its premium service. Other companies are looking at IOT data to track how well you’re driving, and make insurance offers based on this information.

“It may seem benign – ‘Maybe they’ll give me more targeted advertising’, the real issue is we have very important decisions made about our lives – whether or not we have credit ― on the basis of that data,” said Nick Srnicek, author of Platform Capitalism, and a lecturer on digital economies at the Digital Humanities department at King’s College London in an earlier interview. “If an algorithm determines that you shouldn’t have access to credit, it is very hard to report against that.”

Ultimately though, as a number of recent exposés have shown, almost all of the apps that you’re using are sharing your data, and as a consumer, it’s next to impossible to know which platform to trust. Although Doxper said that it isn’t interested in directly monetising user data, others might not have the same view. As consumers, we’re going to have to become much more conscious of our privacy, ensure that there is proper consent about our data, and think twice before using any app—because the companies aren’t interested in doing this on our behalf.

“Green Book” took home the Best Picture Oscar on Sunday night. 

“The whole story is about love,” director Peter Farrelly said while accepting the award. “It’s about loving each other despite our differences and finding out the truth about who we are. We’re the same people.”

The film, starring Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali, was inspired by a true story of a white nightclub bouncer Tony “Lip” Vallelonga (Mortensen) protecting a black concert pianist Don Shirley (Ali) in the deep South in the 1960s. 

The film had come under criticism for its careless and historically inaccurate approach to racism in the Jim Crow era. Additionally, Shirley’s family took issue with several aspects of the movie, calling the script a “symphony of lies.” The family said that no one from the film had reached out to them during production.

Filmmaker Spike Lee was “visibly angry” with “Green Book’s” win, and was reportedly “waving his arms in disgust and appearing to try to storm out of the Dolby Theatre before he was stopped at the doors,” according to AP reporter Andrew Dalton.

People on Twitter were also very unhappy with the academy’s pick for Best Picture, especially since “Roma” and “Black Panther” were widely believed to be the top choices. 

Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper delivered what was quite probably the moment of the night at this year’s Oscars, when they performed their A Star Is Born duet, Shallow.

Prior to the Academy Awards, the pair had only performed the song live together once, during one night of Gaga’s Las Vegas residency, Enigma, but really brought it home on their big night.

While Gaga is most commonly associated with elaborate and over-the-top visuals, her Oscars performance was as stripped-back as it gets, with she and Bradley not even getting an introduction prior to their performance. 

Instead, they got up from their seats and walked up to the empty stage as the song’s guitar introduction played, and gave an intimate and stripped-back performance of Shallow.

And although they had only performed Shallow together outside of A Star Is Born on one other occasion, Gaga and Bradley truly brought the chemistry to the stage that landed both of them nominations for their acting at this year’s Oscars.

Oh, and when she does that roar halfway through... she nailed it.

Her performance of Shallow marked Gaga’s third time singing live at the Oscars, having previously sung a medley of tracks from The Sound Of Music to mark the film’s 60th anniversary in 2015, as well as a live rendition of Till It Happens To You, which deals with the theme of sexual violence, the following year. 

After the performance, Shallow picked up the award for Best Original Song, prompting an emotional speech from Gaga about the importance of work ethic when pursuing your dreams.

Earlier this month, Gaga performed the song solo at the Grammys, with Bradley unable to attend as he was at the Baftas.

Shallow went on to pick up awards at both ceremonies, having also won a Golden Globe at the beginning of awards season.

Rami Malek just won the Best Actor award for his portrayal of iconic Queen frontman Freddie Mercury. 

“This is a monumental moment, one I am so appreciative to all of you, to everyone who has had a hand in getting me here,” Malek said. “Thank you Queen, thank you guys for allowing me to be the tiniest part of your phenomenal, extraordinary legacy. I am forever in your debt.”

Malek’s win makes him the first Egyptian actor to win the prestigious award.

“We made a film about a gay man, an immigrant who lived his life unapologetically himself. The fact that I am celebrating him and this story is proof that we are longing for stories like this,” he added. 

Malek, 37, received high praise for his portrayal of Mercury in the 2018 box-office hit “Bohemian Rhapsody.” The film focused on Mercury’s rise to fame alongside band members Roger Taylor (played by Ben Hardy), Brian May (played by Gwilym Lee) and John Deacon (played by Joseph Mazzello).

The film has been surrounded by controversy since co-director Bryan Singer was accused of sexually abusing and raping teenage boys and creating toxic work environments on his movie sets. Singer was fired and replaced by Dexter Fletcher halfway through production, but Singer received the sole directorial credit on the film. 

In a January interview, Malek said he was not initially aware of the allegations against Singer. Earlier this month, however, the actor said that Singer’s accusers deserve “to have their voice heard.”

Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Pema Khandu on Monday appealed for peace and sought to assure the people of the state the government would not take up the Permanent Residence Certificate matter after violence rocked the state over the weekend.

Two persons were killed and three injured in police firing as protests over recommendations of granting permanent resident certificates (PRCs) to six communities escalated on Sunday, police sources told PTI.

“On the night of 22 February, I had clarified through media and social media that the government won’t hold further discussions over this. Today also, an order has been issued via the chief secretary that we won’t take up the PRC matter,” Khandu said.

“I would like to appeal to all those protesting that their demand had already been accepted by government on 22nd itself. PRC issue is closed. I request them not to hold protests and dharna and cooperate with the government,” Khandu said.

Police had on Sunday opened fire when protesters tried to attack the private residence of Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu at ESS sector in the afternoon. Security personnel urged them to return, but without paying any heed to the request, the protesters marched towards his residence and started pelting stones.

To control the situation, police had to resort to firing in which two men, aged between 20 and 24 years, were killed, the sources told PTI. Three others were injured in the firing.

The body of another person, who was killed in alleged police firing on Friday night, was kept by the protesters at the Indira Gandhi Park here and they said that it will not be buried until their demands were met.

So far, two persons have lost their lives and four injured as massive protests broke out over the PRC issue in the state.

Pema Khandu had called an all-party meeting on Sunday to take stock of the situation and decide on future course of action, but none of the parties, including the opposition Congress, NPP and PPA turned up.

“Considering the present situation pertaining to grant of PRCs to non-APST (Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes) of Namsai and Changlang districts, the state government has decided that no further action will be taken in grant of PRCs,” Chief Secretary Satya Gopal said in a statement on Sunday.

Violence in the state

On Sunday, protesters allegedly set ablaze the private residence of Arunachal Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Chowna Mein and ransacked the office of the deputy commissioner here, police said.

A large number of people marched through the streets vandalising public property and vehicles. They also set on fire a large number of vehicles parked in the compound of the DC’s office.

The agitators attacked the Itanagar Police station and several public properties in the state capital, police said, adding that they allegedly damaged the Sohum shopping mall here and looted the valuables, besides setting ablaze a market complex in Naharlagun.

Protesters’ demands

The agitators have been demanding permanent resolution to the PRC issue, immediate resignation of the chief minister, unconditional release of protesters (numbering around 40) and immediate transfer of the chief secretary, among others.

A Joint High Power Committee (JHPC), after holding parleys with the stakeholders, recommended granting PRCs to six communities, who are not natives of Arunachal Pradesh, but has been living in Namsai and Changlang districts for decades.

The proposals evoked resentment among several community-based groups and students’ organisations, who claimed that the rights and the interests of indigenous people would be compromised if the state government accepts them.

The Nyishi Elite Society (NES), apex body of the largest community in the state, has appealed to the people to remain calm and use maximum restraint to evade further escalation of violence.

It also condemned the state government for “late and inept” handling of the bandh call given on February 21 and 22, and “failing to read the pulse and demand of the people”.

Olivia Colman is an Oscar winner, after triumphing in the Best Actress category.

Now that’s a sentence which is seriously good to type. 

The actress has come a long way since playing Sophie in Peep Show but she’s still just as humble and grounded as ever, which was clear when her name was announced during Sunday night’s ceremony. 

The Best Actress category was one of the most talked about in the run-up to the big night, largely thanks to the fact it seemed to be a two-horse race between Olivia and Glenn Close. 

Given that the nomination was Glenn’s seventh, many critics assumed she’d finally win and judging from Olivia’s reaction when her name was called, she agreed with them: 

Struggling to speak through tears on stage, she laughed: “It’s genuinely quite stressful. This is hilarious. I got an Oscar!

“OK, I have to thank lots of people, if by the way I forget anybody I’m going to find you later and I’m going to give you all a massive snog and I’m really sorry if I might forget now.

“But Yorgos [Lanthimos,] my best director and the best film, and with Emma [Stone] and Rachel [Weisz], the two loveliest women in the world to fall in love with, and to go to work with every day, I mean, you can imagine, it wasn’t a hardship.

“And to be in this category with these extraordinary women, and Glenn Close… you’ve been my idol for so long and this is not how I wanted it to be and I think you’re amazing and I love you very much.”

She then thanked her kids, who may or may not be watching at home. 

″“Well, if you’re not [watching], then, well done, but I sort of hope you are,” she said. “This is not going to happen again.

“And any little girl who is practising their speech on the telly, you never know. I used to work as a cleaner and I loved that job, I did spend quite a lot of my time imagining this.”

She then said that she was being asked to “please wrap up”, and blew a raspberry to laughter from the audience.

“Thank you, and my husband Ed, my best friend, I love you so much; 25 years, you’ve been my best supporter, he’s going to cry! I’m not,” Olivia continued. “Thank you so much, Fox, everybody, the cast, the crew, Frances, Sam, thank you.

“Argh, thank you so much… Lady Gaga!”

After seemingly endless speculation about how the Oscars would fare without a host, Sunday’s ceremony ended up being... totally fine. 

The last time the evening proceeded without an A-lister in charge, things got pretty chaotic, but it seems Hollywood has come a long way since 1989. 

This time around, there was no Rob Lowe dancing with Snow White for a start, and the opening monologue came courtesy of the dream team that is Amy Poehler, Maya Rudolph and Tina Fey.

“We are not your hosts, but we are gonna stand here a little too long so that the people who get USA Today tomorrow will think we hosted,” joked Tina. 

Each award was then presented by a celebrity pair as usual, with links between and commercial break announcements coming from a voiceover. 

There wasn’t a La La Land moment in sight and viewers were very much here for it...  

The show was closed by Julia Roberts, who presented the final award of the night, Best Film. 

Will they stick with the no host plan for 2020? We kind of hope so. 

Anxiety and panic attacks, both distressing and overwhelming, are terms often used interchangeably. There is, however, a clear distinction between the two and how the body responds to each.

Asmita Sharma, a psychologist at Antaraal, told Huffpost India that an anxiety attack doesn’t have strong physiological responses—breathing getting shallow, heart rate going up—like a panic attack.

The fundamental difference between a panic attack and an anxiety attack is the prevalence of a trigger, said Tanya Vasunia, a psychologist at Mpower. “A trigger is a clinical term used to classify a person, event or situation which activates or sets off feelings of anxiety.”

If you’re worried about experiencing either, experts tell us the difference between a panic attack and an anxiety attack and how to manage both.

Panic attacks are unpredictable

Panic attacks are more unpredictable and generally do not have a trigger, Vasunia said. “This makes the individual feel extremely vulnerable as they have no clear idea when an attack can take place or what triggers them,” she added.

A panic attack shows itself through intense physiological responses like increased heart rate, shortness of breath, shaking of hands and legs, and a terrifying fear like you’re dying. This, she said, “may be because the feeling of being in danger is set off within the person even though they might not be in any imminent danger”.

What is an anxiety attack?

Anxiety attacks happen when there is a trigger. “It is important to note that there can be multiple triggers of a single anxious thought spiral,” she added.

Sharma added that anxiety can be understood in two forms—‘realistic anxiety’ that stems from real and actual danger and ‘neurotic anxiety’ comes from internal conflicts within us between what we want and what we can’t have. Anxiety, she said, may be pointing towards an impending danger. 

How to manage panic and anxiety attacks?

Sharma said the person should be brought to familiar and safe surroundings. “It’s important that people around don’t lose their calm as that can add to the sense of anxiety. Having a circle of people who are willing to listen by suspending judgement is very important to someone going through anxiety.”

"Try to ensure the individual remains hydrated, getting them a cold glass of water to sip is often a good way to ensure this," Vasunia suggested. 

She also said that the person should be encouraged to engage in diaphragmatic breathing. This breathing involves the expansion and contraction of the stomach during inhalation and exhalation.

Experts agree that in the long run, the person should get in touch with a mental health professional. “If not managed correctly anxiety and panic attacks can lead to depressive symptoms, paranoia and substance abuse. It is imperative that the individual seeks professional help,” Vasunia said. 

It’s time to talk about “Green Book,” the Peter Farrelly-directed buddy comedy/road trip saga/historical dramedy that’s earned so many accolades this awards season that we can no longer ignore its cloying existence.

The film, inspired by a true story, centers on the unlikely friendship between white nightclub bouncer Tony “Lip” Vallelonga (Viggo Mortenson) and black concert pianist Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali), who employs Tony to be his driver for a two-month trip through the American South.

Tony is loud, uncouth and laid-back, while Don is, well, the opposite of Tony entirely. Their time together, however, teaches them things, as so many cinematic odd couple pairings tend to do: Don learns to let go of his need to seem “respectable” in the eyes of white people. Tony learns to let go of some of his strongly held (racist) beliefs about black people.

It all sounds nice enough. Simple. “Green Book” harks back to a golden age of feel-good cinema, when, in the 1980s and ’90s, bonding journeys did a great job of pulling at audiences’ heartstrings. Farrelly’s film, nominated for several Golden Globes in the year 2018, has certainly pulled at some people’s heartstrings. (New York Magazine’s David Edelstein called it “pleasantly simpleminded” and “great fun.” In a statement released in response to his Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor, Mortenson described it as “a story equal to the best work of Frank Capra and Preston Sturges.” It’s doing reasonably well at the box office.)

But the movie has also received a good heap of criticism for clumsily rehashing and over-simplifying decades of racial dynamics in America. (New York Times’ A.O. Scott sums it up in one line: “There’s not much here you haven’t seen before, and very little that can’t be described as crude, obvious and borderline offensive, even as it tries to be uplifting and affirmative.”)

So what is it? A harmless, feel-good flick about how friendship can overcome racial differences? Or is it just another distorted, if well-meaning, “white savior” narrative from Hollywood? Critics Zeba Blay and Matt Jacobs sat down to chat about the movie’s merits (or lack there of), and why it might be resonating with moviegoers. 

Zeba Blay: So, Matt, we’re talking about “Green Book” today. But there’s a problem: I have nothing to say about it other than, “BLAH.” When was the last time there was such a boring movie about ~race~ out? 

Matt Jacobs: I hear you. But a confession is in order: I think “Green Book” is wildly entertaining ― the sort of broad, cheesy crowd-pleaser that used to open weekly. And that’s what makes the movie so unforgivable. Something this misguided and reductive shouldn’t be allowed to be so enjoyable. Talk me off the ledge, Zeba.

Zeba: Wildly entertaining, you say? Whew, chiiiile! I have to say, I’m a little shook. Because I think we tend to have similar takes on movies, but in this case, the broadness, the cheesiness, and the predictability of this script is exactly the sort of things that made it unentertaining to me. I’ve been reading so many reviews about this film that say “Sure, it’s kinda racist, but it’s so much fun!” I really fail to see the fun here. I didn’t even find the performances, which seem to be the most-praised thing about this movie, particularly compelling (especially Mortensen). I guess, in order to accept this movie as a crowd-pleaser, one must consider which crowds it’s pleasing. I think the things that make this movie “feel good” are, quite frankly, the things that make people feel good about not being aggressively racist. And that, to me, is the most boring thing of all.

In that respect, I agree with you: I think it’s a bad thing when a movie this willfully bland, on so many levels, gets passed off as a heartwarming buddy movie and nothing else. But tell me: What in this movie worked for you?

Matt: We’re more in agreement here than you might think, because everything you just said is spot-on. The aspects that worked for me ― and I use the idea of it “working” somewhat loosely ― have more to do with Hollywood’s present landscape than anything else. The zippy, dialogue-driven, wide-release dramedies that were omnipresent in the 1980s and ’90s are few and far between these days, and I’d take more of those and far, far less of whatever “Transformers” spinoff is opening next. “Green Book,” in some sense, reminded me of that era.

But the middlebrow tone also works to its disadvantage, because the movie that would have felt at home 20 years ago, the ideas it’s proffering, aren’t any more thoughtful or progressive. I mean, in “Green Book,” a white man teaches a black man how to eat fried chicken, for chrissakes. What can we even make of that scene?

Zeba: That scene in particular epitomizes a lot of what’s off about this movie. I didn’t think there was anything inherently offensive about the scene, but, boy, was it self-aware. Like, I see what you’re doing, movie, and you see that I see what you’re doing, and you’re feeling pretty clever and patting yourself on the back when, in actuality, you’re not doing/saying anything that interesting or provocative at all.

I found the tension around Don Shirley’s blackness here and throughout the movie incredibly reductive and overdone. Throughout the movie there’s this exchange happening between Don and Tony, in which Tony helps Don get in touch with his blackness and Don helps Tony realize that not all “blacks” are so bad, which is the entire movie in a nutshell. And it’s just so uninteresting. Just like that scene! What did you think about Don and Tony’s dynamic/friendship here? Did you think the power dynamics between them brought up anything compelling?

Matt: Only the chance for two talented actors to riff off each other, especially Ali, who manages to make the steely, starchy Don the pair’s more magnetizing half. But in terms of social commentary? No way. It plays into all the obvious tropes, leaving us no room to expect anything but a feel-good conclusion that lets everyone pat themselves on the back for watching two dudes overcome a sliver of racism and classism. Maybe I wouldn’t mind it being presented as a buddy comedy if it offered the dual perspective it thinks it does. But this is Tony’s movie, and Don just happens to be in enough of it to eventually turn it into a two-hander. We begin and end at Tony’s New York apartment, and everything that happens in between is positioned predominately through his POV ― a big pitfall on the movie’s part, since Don is the more relevant (and interesting) character.

How would you compare “Green Book” to, say, “The Help” or “Driving Miss Daisy,” in terms of breezy Hollywood movies that filter racial tensions through white protagonists’ eyes? 

Zeba: You’re so right about the wonky perspective in this movie. I mean, there’s a scene early on, in which we watch Tony throw out two glasses that a pair of black repairmen in his home drank from in disgust. He actually holds them between his forefinger and thumb as if the glasses are radioactive. This is the perspective through which I’m supposed to be comfortable watching this movie, the person with whom I’m expected to empathize with, the person I am supposed to believe is “not racist” anymore by the end of the movie? I checked out completely at that point.

I’ve never seen “Driving Miss Daisy,” but in the case of “The Help,” at least the racial awakening of the white protagonist is easier to believe. By the end of “Green Book,” there’s no part of me that can forget that glass scene. I’m sorry, but that kind of childish, seemingly benign racism is not the sort of thing that goes away. Maybe this is veering off a little from your original question, I’m sorry, but movies like that flourish because they absolve real-life white people of their real-life bullshit. The movie is just so flippant about everything ― race, queerness. It presents the real life stakes of these identities in Don’s life as simple problems for Tony to solve. That irks me.

Matt: Right, at least “The Help” isn’t about a white protagonist learning to overcome her own racism. Tony’s bigotry goes from 10 to 2 in a little more than two hours, and the thing that gets him there is ... what? Realizing that his black friend is smarter than he is? Since the movie is clearly about Tony, it should have done more with his heritage (you know, other than scenes of his family eating pasta), given how much America discriminated against Italians in the early 20th century. You have to squint to make that connection because it’s so invested in exalting Tony as its white savior.

Another thing that irked me: the title. The Green Book was a guide that told black travelers which businesses were safe to patronize, but it’s only mentioned in passing here. That’s a rich history that’s largely unexplored, yet it serves as the film’s title, further proving how half-baked the nuances are. And now the story of Don Shirley — someone I wasn’t familiar with before — will be memorialized through a movie that’s not even about him OR the book that steered this small chapter of his life. Maybe that’s the ultimate travesty?

Zeba: Yes, yes, yes. The title truly is one of the most, if not the most, tone-deaf things about this movie. I’d much rather see a film about the creation of the Green Book and how it played into the lives of regular black folk than this movie.

I must say, as much as this movie gets wrong about race, as reductive and over-simplistic as it is, it inspires no actual outrage in me. Just pure disappointment. I think, at the end of the day, the most fascinating thing about the movie is the fact that it exists. It’s just hard to believe how a movie like this got made in 2018, how it managed to ensnare the talents of Mahershala Ali (cannot believe this is his first feature since “Moonlight”) or how there are actual critics praising it. All its racial blind spots aside, it is a mediocre movie at best and I do wonder if the racial themes weren’t running through this film, would it still be getting this type of praise?

So, you know how I feel ― I’d definitely tell people to skip this movie (in light of Viggo Mortensen’s recent comments on it alone). What about you? Do you think there are some kernels of worthiness here?

Matt: Ultimately, no. I still sorta think there’s something brisk and enjoyable about its pacing, mostly because I miss the enjoyably bloated PG-13 dramedies of yore. But this isn’t the reason to bring them back. We’ll see whether the Oscars elevate its profile — they do love simplistic movies about race, after all — but I’d like to think a good faction of America will see “Green Book” for what it is: trite, undercooked and, yep, disappointing.

This has been “Should You Watch It?” a weekly examination of movies and TV worth ― or not worth! ― your time.

DHAKA (Reuters) - A Bangladeshi man who was shot dead after he tried to hijack a plane had carried a toy pistol and did not have any explosives on him, police said on Monday.

“The pistol with the suspect was a toy pistol and he had no bomb attached to his body,” Kusum Dewan, additional commissioner of police in the southeastern city of Chittagong, told Reuters.

“He appeared to be mentally imbalanced. We heard he had a personal issue with his wife and demanded to speak to the prime minister. But we are still investigating. We don’t want to come to any conclusion right now.”

Bangladeshi commandoes shot the passenger who had tried to enter the cockpit of a Biman Bangladesh Airlines flight on Sunday after waving a gun and threatening to blow up the plane.

The passenger told the pilot he wanted to speak to Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. 

“We tried to arrest him or get him to surrender but he refused and then we shot him,” said Major General S M Motiur Rahman of theBangladesh Army.

The man’s threat to blow up the plane, which was on its way to Dubai from Dhaka via Chittagong, led its pilots to make an emergency landing.

Before the commandos moved in, all 142 passengers and most of the crew had been let off the aircraft unharmed. One crew member had been held hostage, the officials said.

Air Vice Marshal Nayeem Hasan, chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh, had on Sunday told reporters at a news conference that as well as holding what appeared to be a pistol the passenger said he had explosives bound to his body.

With the plane close to Chittagong after leaving Dhaka, the passenger stood up from his seat and tried to go to the cockpit, according to aviation officials. When a member of the crew blocked his way, he showed his pistol.

He then said he had explosives and if they didn’t open the door of the cockpit he would blow up the plane, officials said. Other members of the crew alerted the pilots to the problem and they asked air traffic control for an emergency landing.

Spike Lee has compared the Oscars’ selection of “Green Book” as this year’s best film to a loss by his beloved New York Knicks basketball team. He says jokingly, “The ref made the wrong call.”

So angry that he nearly walked out of the Academy Awards after “Green Book” was declared the winner Sunday, he was in much better spirits when he reached the backstage interview room. The standing ovation he received from many in the press corps probably didn’t hurt.

“This is my sixth glass — and you know why,” he shouted as he strolled into the room with a glass of champagne that he sipped from as he answered questions.

Asked what he thought of the film’s victory, he laughed and shouted, “Next question.”

Lee, whose film “BlacKkKlansman” was also nominated, also made light of his loss.

“I’m snakebit,” he said. “Every time someone’s driving somebody I lose.”

It was a reference to “Driving Miss Daisy,” the 1990 best picture Oscar winner in which a black man becomes friends with the white woman he chauffeurs.

“Green Book” tells the story of a white man who becomes friends with the black musician he drives through the 1960s South for a concert tour.

Hailed as a tribute to racial tolerance by its makers and stars, “Green Book” was also widely criticized by many as an outdated, sentimentalized movie full of racial stereotypes.

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea seeking probe into alleged larger conspiracy behind the Pulwama terror attack.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna was hearing a PIL filed by lawyer Vineet Dhanda, seeking probe into alleged larger conspiracy in the attack in which 40 CRPF personnel were killed.

The PIL submitted that nearly 370 kgs of RDX was used in the terror attack and it required a thorough probe.

A day after hinting at entering politics, Robert Vadra on Monday said he would work on it after absolving himself from “baseless accusations and allegations”.

Vadra is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate in cases relating to purchase of alleged illegal assets abroad and an alleged land scam in Bikaner, Rajasthan.

On Sunday, Vadra said he may play “a larger role in serving the people” after the ongoing cases against him are over, sparking speculation that he could join politics as the BJP threw “Congress’s prime ministerial candidate” barb at him.

The Congress played down the suggestion that Vadra, the brother-in-law of party president Rahul Gandhi, wanted to join politics, saying he has long been associated with NGOs and worked for the society, and that it is everyone’s duty to use their qualities to serve the people.

“Will he need Modi ji (Prime Minister Narendra Modi) permission to do work related to people?” Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera said at a press conference when asked about Vadra’s “hint” that he may join politics.

Such hints are for the media to draw, Khera added.

In a Facebook post, Vadra wrote about years and months he spent campaigning and working in different parts of the country, mainly in Uttar Pradesh, and claimed that it gave him a feeling to do more for the people.

“All these years of experience and learning cannot be just wasted and should be put to better use... Once all these accusations and allegations are over, I feel I should dedicate a larger role in serving the people,” Vadra, who is Congress general secretary for Uttar Pradesh (East) Priyanka Gandhi’s husband, said.

Priyanka Gandhi had joined active politics recently and was made the party’s general secretary.

Investigating agencies have been probing him in criminal cases of alleged corruption and money laundering, charges often dismissed as a political vendetta by Vadra.

Different governments, he alleged in the post, have maligned him and used his name to divert attentions from the country’s real issues.

The BJP in a tweet tagged a story of Vadra hinting at joining politics to take aims at the Congress.

“Presenting Congress’ Prime Ministerial candidate for Lok Sabha elections,” the BJP tweeted.

The BJP has often cited the controversial land deals involving Vadra to target the opposition party, claiming that it symbolised the “corruption” under the UPA rule.

(With PTI inputs)

Capping off a year that boasted movies as progressive as “Black Panther,” “The Favourite” and “BlacKkKlansman,” the Oscars took us back in time on Sunday, giving Best Picture to something straight out of 1989. 

“Reverse Driving Miss Daisy” ― you know it as “Green Book” ― nabbed the top prize, and with it the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences sent a clear message about how Hollywood sees race in 2019. The film tells the story of real-life black jazz pianist Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) through the lens of the racist white chauffeur (Viggo Mortensen) in his employ, treating the latter as a hero because he overcomes his bigotry. It’s a clichéd, insulting conceit that dupes audiences into feeling good when the white character extends mild graciousness.

A “Green Book” win is proof positive that popular culture has only improved so much on matters of race since “Crash” won Best Picture in 2006. 

The category’s preferential balloting system ensures the trophy goes to a movie that hits a consensus spot among voters. The winner therefore stands in as a median representation of the academy’s taste, providing a snapshot of how Hollywood views itself. This year, it turns out people were most comfortable handing the industry’s highest honor to a movie that places its black character in the backseat, literally and figuratively. 

The win also tells us just how little the academy pays attention to the discourse surrounding the titles in contention. Shirley’s family called “Green Book” a “symphony of lies,” saying it greatly embellished the central friendship and challenging its assumption that Shirley was disconnected from the black community. Ali, who won Best Supporting Actor on Sunday, apologized to Shirley’s relatives in response. Factual integrity isn’t paramount in a fiction film, but in this case the script distorts a black man’s biography to benefit its white lead. Voters didn’t seem to care about that flap, nor did they mind that Mortensen used the N-word at a post-screening Q&A while trying to make a point about how such slurs are no longer acceptable. By the time director Peter Farrelly was apologizing for having exposed his penis on sets when he was younger, everyone had already made up their minds about the movie. 

The academy had so many chances to get it right this year. “Roma,” a luscious black-and-white Mexican drama about an indigenous houseworker, was Best Picture’s presumed front-runner, but it looks like Hollywood wasn’t quite ready to give a disruptive platform like Netflix the big kahuna. “Black Panther” faced a similar dilemma: It would have been the first superhero film to prevail, suggesting a mark of confidence for the genre that’s pulverizing the marketplace. (Furthermore, it offered the academy a chance to reward a movie about race that, unlike “Green Book,” had something new to say.) And “A Star Is Born,” which many initially thought would sweep the entire season, was a way of endorsing an age-old romance that has yet to go out of fashion.

In the end, none of those were safe enough. “Green Book” convinced the overwhelmingly white voting body that recognizing a white man’s portrait of another white man seeing past the color line is noble. Apparently the institution’s recent diversification initiatives weren’t enough to keep the savior narrative used in “The Blind Side,” “The Help” and “Dances with Wolves” at bay. As a result, it’s likely this will go down as one of the worst Best Picture choices on record.

The “Green Book” victory is a fitting finale to a particularly drama-filled awards season that started in August with the contentious introduction of a category meant to honor an “outstanding achievement in popular film.” The accolade was quickly disbanded, but controversies didn’t stop coming, from “Bohemian Rhapsody” director Bryan Singer’s sexual assault allegations to the homophobic jokes that effectively ended Kevin Hart’s hosting gig. To give Best Picture to something as smart as “The Favourite” or as forward-thinking as “Black Panther” would be out of character. 

It makes all too much sense, two years into Donald Trump’s presidency, that Hollywood has crowned a film with regressive American values. This is, after all, a tribunal that prides itself on liberalism but often can’t recognize its own blind spots. As Spike Lee said at the end of the night, “The ref made a bad call.”

There were some awesome lady pantsuits on the Oscars 2019 red carpet on Sunday night. 

Everyone from “Crazy Rich Asians” star Awkwafina to “Eighth Grade’s” Elsie Fisher sported some seriously chic pantsuits at the prestigious ceremony.

Awkwafina, who’s presenting an award, wore a glittery purple power suit from DSquared2. Amy Poehler, another presenter, looked sleek sporting an all-black pantsuit with a tuxedo front. 

People on Twitter were really into all the badass women sporting pantsuits. 

Fisher wore a classic Thom Browne black-and-white suit with a black leather purse to match her patent leather boots. 

“It feels more me,” Fisher told Variety when asked why she chose the suit. “I think everyone else here is rocking better dresses than I could, so why couldn’t I take the suit game?”

Melissa McCarthy, nominated for Best Actress for her performance in “Can You Ever Forgive Me?,” got halfway to a pantsuit, wearing a dramatic black and white jumpsuit with a cape. 

Scroll below to see the chic lady pantsuits from Sunday’s Oscars. 

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court Monday agreed to examine a plea seeking protection of human rights of security force personnel, who come under attack by mobs while performing their duties.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also issued notices to the Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Jammu and Kashmir and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the plea filed by 19-year-old Preeti Kedar Gokhale and 20-year-old Kajal Mishra.

The petitioners said they are “greatly disturbed by the incidents of unruly and disruptive mobs” pelting stones at soldiers and Army convoys in Jammu and Kashmir.

The plea has sought formulation of a policy to curb human rights violations of security force personnel who come under attack by mobs while performing duties.

The petitioners said they have approached the apex court as they were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inaction of the respondents in addressing various acts of human right violations of Army personnel, resulting in obstruction in the discharge of their duties, as well as endangers their safety and security at the place of their deployment.

The petitioners are daughters of Army officials ― one serving and another retired.

“The petitioners are further disturbed by the troops in the Indian Army having to suffer the ire of stone pelters, while they are discharging their duty of maintaining peace and security in the area of their deployment,” the plea has said.

Referring to FIRs being lodged against Army personnel, the plea said cases are being lodged if action was taken against the stone pelters in retaliation or self-defence.

“The petitioners have no grievance to any complaint/FIR being filed against any Armed force personnel for any act done by them which amounts to any criminal offence under the law for the time being in force. However, they are very much aggrieved by the fact that no similar action is taken against the perpetrators of violence,” it said.

The petition termed as shocking a former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister’s declaration in the legislative assembly that as many as 9,760 FIRs registered against stone pelters would be withdrawn as they were first-time offenders.

“It is pertinent to note that firstly, the state is not entitled to withdraw an FIR, once registered against a person, without following the due process of the law as provided in the CrPC/RPC; secondly, the complainant or the victim of the offence is entitled to prosecute the perpetrator of a crime against him,” it said.

The petition added that depriving the armed forces personnel of their right to prosecute a person who has committed an offence against them is a violation of their fundamental right to life and liberty, including the right to legal recourse.

“Further, armed forces personnel are also deprived of their basic human rights of defending themselves against assault and safeguarding their life and limb,” it said.

The petition also said that the petitioners had lodged a complaint of human rights violation with the NHRC, citing specific instances, but the commission transferred the complaint to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) of Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction.

The petitioners also sought setting aside of the NHRC order dated January 4 transferring the representation to the SHRC and a direction to complete the probe of human rights violations of armed forces personnel.

“There is no mechanism put in place by the Centre or the state to deal with such brazen acts of human rights violation of the forces. The armed forces personnel is deployed in these disturbed areas by orders of the respondents to discharge their duties. As such, it is necessary that the respondent No. 1 (Centre) puts in place a mechanism to deal with and enforce the security of its forces,” the plea added.

So, you know that feeling when you’ve literally just been recognised for being at the top of your game and doing better than everyone else in your field in the last 12 months, only to wind up falling over and immediately dragging yourself back down to earth?

Yeah well, Rami Malek does.

Sunday night was a big one for Rami, landing his first ever Oscar for his performance as Freddie Mercury in the divisive Queen biopic Bohemian Rhapsody.

Just moments later, though, he would end up falling clean off the stage at the Dolby Theatre, even being seen to by paramedics.

Fortunately for Rami, the fall took place after the live broadcast was over (exactly what he was doing back on the stage remains to be seen), but photographers still in the auditorium did still capture the moment, including the aftermath of him speaking to an EMT (emergency medical technician).

It doesn’t look like there was any damage, though, with Rami later returning to the press room to pose alongside his fellow acting winners, Olivia Colman of The Favourite, Green Book’s Mahershala Ali and Regina King, who won her first Oscar on Sunday night for her performance in If Beale Street Could Talk.

In addition to Rami’s win, Bohemian Rhapsody was the top film at this year’s Oscars overall, taking home four awards in total, the remaining three coming from technical categories.

Green Book – another of this awards season’s more controversial offerings – took home the coveted Best Picture prize, while Roma and Black Panther also came out on top in three categories each.