Translating K.M. Vasudevan Namboodiri’s Sketches: The Memoir of an Artistfrom Malayalam into English presented a challenge of a kind that I had not faced before. The writer’s voice was quite different from any other that I had encountered. In the passages he wrote as commentary to his sketches, Namboodiri employed an informal, conversational tone, the nuances of which were not easy to capture. While the drawings themselves are infinitely more eloquent than words, the text provided much more than context. Through the texts, Namboodiri shares with readers the impression each set of drawing evoked in him and the vivid memories attached to them. 

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

Namboodiri’s voice moves back and forth: from contemplative to light-hearted, from reflections on the past to commentary on the here-and-now, from serious ideas to amusing anecdotes. If the chapter on Ponnani recreates—with scrupulous detail and an unmistakable tinge of nostalgia—the Kerala landscapes of his youth, the section about working on director Aravindan’s film Kanchana Sita takes us to a world outside Kerala, and infuses us with the wonderful spirit of adventure and companionship that inspired the team involved in making the remarkable film. 

The author shares with us innumerable memories of individuals he had sketched, all of whom influenced his life and work—the renowned artist K.C.S. Panikker, who was his beloved guru; Chembai Vaidyanatha Bhagavathar, a legend in the world of Carnatic music; G. Aravindan, the gifted director whose movies remain some of the most memorable in the history of  Malayalam cinema; Vaikkom Mohammed Basheer, one of Malayalam’s well-known and loved writers and many other such personalities. Namboodiri’s descriptions of interactions with his subjects, and the milieus they moved in, imbues the sketches with wit and emotion and add multiple dimensions to the portraits. Working on these sections of the book was a particularly joyful exercise. 

In his preface to the book, author M.T. Vasudevan Nair draws attention to the use of a dialect spoken in the region of Kerala, the Ponnani taluk, where Naboodiri grew up. Needless to say, the nuances of this distinctive dialect are impossible to capture in English — a challenge that sadly remains for most translators, insurmountable. Nair also mentions the sense of humour that “glimmers like gold dust” through Namboodiri’s memoirs, transforming even a simple narration, be it chance happening or a formal event, into a delightful commentary on the tragic-comic vulnerability of the human condition. As this facet of the book grew clearer, it was fascinating to discover how deeply the written word enriches the sketches, how skillfully Namboodiri paints a whole new and colourful background for them. Namboodiri’s life and the story of how he became an artist takes shape as surely from these memoirs as if he actually intended to write an autobiography. 

Translating Namboodiri’s book was a voyage of discovery and a learning experience. It revealed bit by bit the portrait of a remarkable artist who used lines and words with equal subtlety and skill. 

Gita Krishnankutty is a Sahitya Akademi Award winning translator who translated K.M. Vasudevan Namboodiri’s Sketches (Penguin Random House). She has also been the recipient of the Crossword Award (1999) and two Katha awards (1993, 2000).

NEW DELHI — India’s Muslims have been silent after the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict because they are afraid of what will happen if they speak up, said journalist Rana Ayyub. 

There is a lot of anger and sadness in the community over the Babri Masjid demolition, but people are scared that “anything they say or do will only make things worse for them,” Ayyub told HuffPost India in a long phone interview. 

“This silence is of fear, not happiness. It’s only when you are intimidated that you are silent. We have been asked to shut up. Muslims are numb right now. The community has gone into a cocoon. People are just going about their routines because they don’t want to think anymore. They don’t know what is going to happen next,” she said. 

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

Ayyub’s opinion was shared by other Muslim leaders and activists this reporter spoke to after a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu parties last week, granting the disputed land in Ayodhya to a Hindu trust for the construction of a temple devoted to Ram, and offering an alternative five acres to the Muslim parties to build a mosque. 

“Do you know what would have happened if we had condemned the judgement? ‘Unsatisfied’ is the strongest word we could use,’” said a young Muslim leader in Delhi, who was speaking on the condition of anonymity. 

“Of course, we are deeply unhappy about the verdict but no one can say it openly because we fear the consequences would be worse for us, Muslims,” he said. “We don’t have any other choice but to keep quiet.”

The young man also recalled how the Amethi police threatened legal action against Ayyub for making a “political comment,” when she tweeted ahead of the verdict about how the demolition of the 16th century mosque in 1992 in Ayodhya had changed her life. 

In the late 1980s, senior leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had started an aggressive campaign against the mosque, claiming it was on the spot where a Ram Temple had once stood. The ruling BJP had demanded the construction of a Ram Temple for three decades, but the property dispute goes back to 1949.

Interviews with Indian Muslims revealed how the minority community had preempted the verdict would favour the Hindu parties but agreed to a muted response, fearing a violent backlash in the hostile and menacing environment which has built up since the Narendra Modi-led BJP government came to power in 2014. Religious leaders decided that any statement expressing dissatisfaction had to make clear the community accepted the verdict. The youth leader quoted above said that almost 800 WhatsApp groups with predominantly Muslim members were turned off for public comment. Imams were told not to speak on the verdict when people gathered for Eid e Milad the next day. 

This strange silence, which almost felt like an overreaction, also stems from the fact that mainstream parties, even the ones which have traditionally banked on the minority vote, did not question the verdict. The only non-minority politician to have spoken publicly against the verdict was Thol Thirumavalavan, a Dalit lawmaker from Tamil Nadu, who said, “The faith in Supreme Court is shattered.” 

Among Muslims, with the exception of a very few voices, including Ayyub and Asaduddin Owaisi, a lawmaker from Hyderabad and chief of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), there has been almost no public critique of the verdict. In the immediate aftermath of the verdict, Zafaryab Jilani, the lawyer for the “Muslim parties,’ said the Sunni Waqf Board was ’unsatisfied” and would ask the Supreme Court to review the verdict. Later in the day, a decision was taken not to go ahead with the review. 

In a conversation with HuffPost India, Ayub, who is the author of Gujarat Files: Anatomy of a Cover Up, spoke about the tweet from the Amethi police, the silence of the Muslim community and what it means, and the eternal search for closure. 

Edited excerpts:

There was hardly any pushback from Muslim leaders and people against the Ayodhya verdict. 

To begin with, I don’t think India has a Muslim leadership. You have Muslim politicians in various political outfits. Everyone was shocked by the Congress Party’s response, I was not. It was during the Congress regime that the Babri Masjid was demolished. The Srikrishna report came after the Babri demolition but the Congress did not act on it. I’m not surprised that Muslim politicians in Congress are not talking about it. As far as Muslims are concerned, I think they anticipated this verdict because of the kind of atmosphere that has been building up for the past 5-6 years, whether it is lynching or the NRC (National Register of Citizens), or there is an assault on their religion and religious identity, every day, even if it is just talking about the Taj Mahal. So, Muslims have been getting used to it. There is also a lot of fear. 

In my Washington Postarticle, I wrote that not just my brother, but my uncle called up and said ‘don’t make life difficult for us’. These are privileged families, well-to-do families, upper middle-class families, and these families are not talking out of fear. The WhatsApp group in our society was full of congratulatory and Jai Shri Ram messages. Muslims feel isolated. You see your friends and neighbours in a new light, but you do not express yourself out of fear. Muslims have accepted there is a new order which is Hindu majoritarian state, where the next issue might be the Uniform Civil Code. The Babri verdict is the beginning of the worst that India will see in the next five years. 

You talk about being in a privileged position that allows you to talk about grievances. What do you mean by privilege?

If you see the pattern of lynchings in India, they are from lower-to-middle-class backgrounds. They are not privileged Muslims who basically sit in their living rooms, watching television, cribbing about it and going about their routine life.  The Muslims who actually protest are silent because they are afraid for their livelihood. They are afraid of getting highlighted by the mainstream media. I think Muslims today are resigned to their fate. 

When Yakub Memon was hanged, Muslims galvanised on the streets and there were protests. That was anger being expressed against the state. Whatever the circumstances, there were people who came out on the streets. There was a march for the 22-year-old techie who was killed in Pune. There were “Not in my name” protests against the lynchings. But now, there are no voices. It started with anger, then shock, then despair, and then numbness. I don’t know what comes after this.

What is the fear? Is it fear of neighbours complaining to the police, of being highlighted in the media, of getting beaten up by a mob? 

I’ll give you an example. I was on the Bombay-Srinagar flight after Article 370 was abrogated. One passenger, who works with a very well-known IT company, said that when he had tried to tell his co-workers that what had happened was a “betrayal”, he was told not to discuss Kashmir or any of his issues in office. He was trying to explain his point of view to his coworkers and he was silenced.

Bigotry and communalism have always been there in India, but with this regime, the elements which are bigoted and communal have become emboldened. They feel that now they can speak without any filter. Muslims who are not used to such hostile conversations are really surprised at the tone of the conversations that are happening. 

This year, my own younger brother and his wife were forced out of their apartment because they were the only Muslims living in that locality. He owns that apartment and he had to leave it. My sister-in-law had just started wearing a hijab because every Sunday they would go to the madrasa. That became a problem. This was one of the most elite societies in Navi Mumbai. This is not something that would happen earlier. Yes, Muslims would have a hard time finding apartments but someone who owned an apartment did not have to vacate. It wasn’t this bad. If all their friends in this society cannot come forward and speak for them, that is the culture now. Muslims live in fear of the state, in fear of their neighbours, in fear of their bosses, in fear of their colleagues and in fear for their children’s future. Not everyone can face intimidation, not everyone can afford to leave the country. They have to live in this country. If they have to live in this country, Muslims believe they have to conform to the language that is being spoken and to the decisions that are being taken on their behalf. 

After the Babri verdict, I would have thought there would be at least some conversation among the congregations in the mosques, at least one protest in Aizad Maidan (in Mumbai), but there was nothing. That speaks volumes to where we are. 

Could it just be that Muslims are okay with the verdict? 

That’s not the case. If that was the case, there would not be this silence. If you are okay, you express your happiness or you contentment. You are not silent. This silence is of fear, not happiness. It’s only when you are intimidated that you are silent. We have been asked to shut up. Muslims are numb right now. The community has gone into a cocoon. They don’t want to speak with anyone. People are just going about their routines because they don’t want to think anymore. They don’t know what is going to happen next. 

When I post something on Babri and Ayodhya on Instagram, my Instagram followers say “Ma’am, why are you making life difficult for us. Ma’am, why don’t you shut up.” I have never seen that before. If they were really happy then they would not ask me to shut up. They would not ask me to stay silent and stop making life difficult for them. I know the anger, how much anger there is, over the Babri Masjid in the Muslim community, the community I live in.  It was sacrosanct for us. The verdict has not led to a public expression of outrage is because Muslims fear that anything they say or do will only make things worse for them. 

What worries you more: the verdict or Muslims not even being able to say they are unhappy about it? 

I’m worried about the fact that the Supreme Court of India has taken a decision without being sensitive to the beliefs of Indian Muslims. As a Muslim citizen of this country, I want to know what was the need for the Chief Justice of India to take the entire bench to Taj Mansingh hotel for dinner that night of the verdict. How am I supposed to feel? What is the message that is being sent? Are Muslims in this country not supposed to have faith in the judiciary anymore? The Supreme Court verdict says the demolition was illegal, but if you still give a judgement in favour of Hindus, then something is deeply wrong. 

The Ayodhya dispute is a title dispute that predates the demolition. The SC has called the demolition “illegal”, but the judges chose to base their decision on the findings of the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India). It feels like you are looking at the verdict only from the prism of the demolition.

The entire judgement does not make sense to me. Many have expressed concern about the contradictory nature of the order itself. What has the ASI pointed out? That there were murtis. You excavate anything in India and you will find murtis. We are a 1000-year-old civilisation. You will find statutes and idols. Are the ASI findings the only thing that can lead to a judgement like this? I don’t think so. The reason that I talk about the demolition is that you cannot see the verdict in isolation. Something very wrong happened in 1992 and the world was watching. Instead of rallying against that wrong, the court has validated what happened in 1992 and after it. 1992, as I recall, was called a ‘blot on the Indian democracy’. Then why does the judgement not reflect on that blot?

The judgement says what happened in 1992 was unlawful.

The Supreme Court chose not to go into the illegalities that led up to the demolition. There was the Rath Yatra. There was an order that the Babri Masjid would not be demolished, but karsevaks still demolished it.  Then, the Supreme Court gives a verdict that a temple will be built on it. This is not a Muslim perspective but a logical one. If an act was illegal, then you have to atone for it, not be emboldened. Otherwise what message are you sending the country?  The Supreme Court judgement has paved the way for many demolitions. 

The Supreme Court has emphasised the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which says there will be no change to the religious character of a place as it existed since independence. 

Since when have things been happening according to the law in this country? Is the NRC happening according to the law? Is horse trading not unconstitutional? But it happens. Even if you think my fears are an exaggeration, have the last five or six years been an exaggeration as well? The entire judgement is skewed in favour of the faith of the majority community. That’s the bottom line of this judgement. And if it was a question of faith, then there could have been a better decision. 

Babri was a symbol of our faith. The judgement is not about one mosque getting replaced with a temple. The judgement is about a culture that prevailed after the destruction. Now, with this verdict, it amplifies the voices that should have been made silent. Anyone who has seen communal agendas being strengthened since the nineties, knows how important this judgement was. This judgement furthers the agenda of the BJP over communal harmony. If the judge felt that a judgement in favour of Muslims could have led to rioting, then it speaks volumes about where we are now.

Is the Supreme Court calling the demolition unlawful not enough? 

Saying it’s unlawful is not enough. I didn’t see names in the judgement. There is not a single statement that criticises what (L.K.) Advani and (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee did. I didn’t see strong words in the judgement.

I’m not sure the Supreme Court could have named people given there are ongoing criminal proceedings against Advani and others accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case. 

In the Best Bakery case (of the 2002 Gujarat riots), the Supreme Court said the modern day Neros in Gujarat did nothing while women and children were butchered. How do you not talk about who demolished the Babri Masjid? Should there not have been a more stern statement about the leadership that brought down the mosque?  Why is that missing? Why did the judge not say the events of 1992 cannot be repeated to safeguard the secular nature of this country? 

You talk about closure in your recent Washington Post article. What is closure for you?

As a nine-year-old, I see images of the symbol of my faith being demolished and the attitude of my neighbours changing overnight. If the Babri Masjid had not been demolished, there would have been no riots. I would not have lived through the circumstances that I did. I have this nightmare once a month. There are people knocking at the door and my father is running from the doors to the windows trying to shut everything. What about my closure? If the Supreme Court of India had condemned the BJP leadership at the time, it would have made it easier. 

What about the closure for millions of Hindus who either believe or have been pushed into believing a Ram Temple has to be built on that spot? 

The verdict could have meant closure for both communities. Both a temple and mosque could have been accommodated in the same premises.

The BJP and its allies may be pushing religious polarisation and, to an extent, manufacturing resentment against Muslims, but this is also just tapping into existing resentments which have been festering since the Partition. 

I have always maintained that whether we like it or not, India is a communal country. There have been communal sentiments on both sides. Neither side got closure after the Partition of India. There are Hindus who feel that Muslims were given a piece of land in Pakistan and if they chose to live here than they need to follow the diktats of the rightwing. This is stoked by the RSS, time and again. This is stoked by the BJP, time and again. 

We talk a lot about BJP and its communal agenda, but there is a lot that can be traced back to the Congress—opening the locks of the Babri Masjid, the NRC, and even the laws against cow slaughter. Is the emphasis on the BJP warranted? 

It’s not just the BJP that is responsible. The Congress has sowed the seeds of religious polarisation, whether it was Rajiv Gandhi or Indira Gandhi or Sanjay Gandhi. There was a genocide in 1984 (anti-Sikh riots). Kamal Nath is the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh. The Congress sat on the Srikrishna report when it was in power. The misuse of anti-terror laws happened under the Congress regime. The BJP has only been emboldened by the Congress. But that does not justify what the BJP is doing now. Two wrongs do not make a right. But there is one thing. The injustices that we saw under the Congress regime were not so brazen as the ones we are seeing now. We did not see the kind of lynchings we have now. There was no minister in the Congress government who was welcoming and garlanding people accused of lynching. There is a minor difference. I think Congress is as communal as BJP, but with a thin veneer of secularism. 

The Amethi police responded to your tweet ahead of the Ayodhya verdict by threatening action against you. Does it frighten you? Do you find it ridiculous?

There are two things. The ridiculousness of the Amethi police. When have political comments become a crime? We are all political people. First, I did not say anything that could stoke communal fire. I was saying something very personal about my childhood and my memories.  Second, the tweet only came after right-wingers started tagging the UP and Amethi police to take action against me. There was a sea of trollers tagging the UP police. This is very scary. Today, they were forced by public outrage to delete their tweet. Tomorrow, what if they tweet and I find the cops waiting for me over something very trivial and innocuous? It is disturbing. Do I fear for my safety? Yes. 

Do you feel reassured by the public outrage and backlash against the tweet put out by the Amethi police, which eventually forced them to delete it? 

Yes, it is encouraging. But what if what happened today, happens again tomorrow? You cannot expect this support every time. People may outrage for a few days but then people forget. It makes me fear for my future and my journalism in the future. 

The Amethi police tweet would have had an impact on Muslims on Twitter, many of whom may not be in the privileged position that I am in. If they see the Amethi police threatening to take action against me, they will think that if it can happen to her… Not everyone has the bandwidth to take this kind of threat. Not everyone has the support that I enjoy. I’m known, at least on Twitter. What if it happened to someone who was not? There would not have been so much outrage.  

By targeting me, they sent out a message to other Muslims, well-meaning people, that you cannot comment on this. When we are talking of silence, it’s not just the absence of the rallies on the roads, but also the silence on social media. Instances like this make people live in fear. If that IT professional, for example, had tweeted what I had tweeted, he might have lost his job. There would not have been any one of us who would have bothered about it. 

Is there too much of a chilling effect? Will people not count on frivolous cases getting thrown out? 

For the case to be thrown out, you would first have to go to a police station, go to the court. No one wants to do that.

You are a prominent voice on social media. I was at  an event to mark Maulana Azad’s birth anniversary, where a speaker said that change will not be induced from behind a keyboard. Why do you find social media useful?

Social media has made the world a closer smaller place. I know that people are suffering in Bolivia because there are tweets that I follow from journalists there. I think social media has helped amplify the voices of those who could not speak. Television channels, the mainstream media, have stopped calling sane voices. There are so many activists who have found a voice on social media. If we need to involve millennials, teenagers, in this battle against fascism then we need to use social media. It is important. You cannot dismiss it. 

Social media may have amplified voices, but I’m not sure it has made the world a smaller or closer place. We are all shouting in our own silos. 

Social media won’t do everything for us. Social media can galvanize people to come on the streets and do a ‘Not in my name’ protest. Social media can start a hashtag that can lead to an issue getting highlighted. Social media came in handy when the Amethi police threatened me with a case. Social media came in handy when Asifa was raped and her killers were being celebrated. Social media can help galvanize but it can’t do everything.

Do you think Muslims are going overboard with the silence? 

I don’t know. I’m trying to understand. Muslims are not 10,000 people in a population of 1.2 billion. We are 220 million. Muslims cannot afford to stay silent if they intend to stay in this country. If they think their silence means they will not face any excessive mistreatment, they are mistaken. Silence only emboldens tormentors. This silence is only emboldening them. We have to break this cycle. 

People magazine on Tuesday crowned singer-songwriter John Legend as its “Sexiest Man Alive” for 2019.

And Legend’s wife, the model and cookbook author Chrissy Teigen, wasted no time in poking fun at her husband’s new title.

She first tweeted about fulfilling “my dream of having boned People’s sexiest man alive!! an honor!!!!!”

Teigen later revealed the couple’s children, Luna, 3, and Miles, 1, “do not care” about the accolade:

Teigen joked she “cannot WAIT for people to get mad” about the announcement, quipping it’s “all downhill from here.”

She also changed her Twitter bio to inform the world she is “currently sleeping with people’s sexiest man alive.”

Legend does not appear to have publicly responded to his wife’s wisecracks. 

But he did suggest that the 1995 version of himself “would be very perplexed” to follow in British actor Idris Elbas’ footsteps with the win:

Legend also showed off a chain featuring his new acronym, given how he has previously won Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony awards.

“I was excited, but I was a little scared at the same time because it’s a lot of pressure,” Legend told People. “Everyone’s going to be picking me apart to see if I’m sexy enough to hold this title. I’m [also] following Idris Elba, which is not fair and is not nice to me!”

Elba, who won the magazine’s title in 2018, congratulated Legend with this dig at fellow actor Dwanye “The Rock” Johnson, who won the award in 2016. (Legend’s “The Voice” co-judge Blake Shelton won in 2017.)

This is the full text of the response to the HuffPost India story How An Expansion Spree Put TISS On The Brink Of Collapse, dated 8 November 2019, from U. Vindhya, Acting Deputy Director of TISS Hyderabad, along with faculty members of the Management Committee. The response from the reporter, Nikhila Henry, is below Vindhya’s letter.

Dear Ms Nikhila Henry,

Thanks for your mail dated November 7th. 

Even as I was planning to respond to your mail, a colleague sent your article (dated 8^th November 2019) this morning and I was rather taken aback to see that you ended your report by saying “Prof Vindhya refused to comment on the allegations”. In fact, on the contrary, I had specifically asked you to mail me what were the student’s allegations (since in your text messages sent to me on 6^th November you had not disclosed what the allegations were) in order for us to give a detailed response.

The mail that you sent me on 7th November also did not contain any deadline for me to respond unless it is being assumed that there should be an immediate response without of course being mindful of the fact that like journalists, we too have pressing work commitments and deadlines. I had also texted you on 6^th of November saying that I was currently not in Hyderabad and that I would ask my colleagues to provide you with a response, although it is our vacation now. 

We would like to clarify the following points, which we strongly believe Huffington Post should carry as a correction to some of the views expressed in your piece.

1. You referred to two show-cause notices given to the student whom you have quoted as saying on Facebook that she has been pushed to the verge of suicide on account of them. I wonder why you did not choose to report the final outcome of one of the notices involving her. The notice pertained to a complaint of intimidation and assault levelled by a student belonging to a marginalized community against her and several others. The administration constituted an inquiry committee, consisting of two faculty members of TISS Hyderabad and one external member, a reputed academic. After lengthy hearings and ample opportunities given to both parties to put forth their points of view, the conclusion of this committee was not to recommend punitive measures against any student. Rather the committee strongly suggested that both groups of students should henceforth actively work towards bridging differences stemming from varied ideological perspectives, and towards creating a healthy culture on the campus. The FB post that you referred to was dated 28th September but your article was published on 8^th November; so I wonder why you chose not to report the outcome of the inquiry committee which in no way can be construed as pushing anyone “to the verge of suicide”. 

There was another inquiry committee too constituted to go into a complaint lodged by one of the students who was a key participant in the students’ protest in July. This complaint too was against other fellow students. The outcome of this inquiry too was to suggest restraint and better relations between students. I am referring to these inquiry committees only to say that the administration has not been selective in its approach of taking up complaints lodged by students. Therefore, to answer your specific question “Did TISS take punitive action against students?”, the answer is “No.” 

2. The second notice given to 30 students referred to the events in July 2019 when a section of students physically prevented faculty, admin staff and students from entering the premises for several days at a stretch, and asking faculty members, and “upper caste faculty to get out”, leaving the administration with no choice but to declare sine die closure of the Institute (which incidentally was in force for 9 days from July 16^th to 24^th 2019). The student protest had continued despite the matter of the hostel fees for the GoI-PMS students having been resolved according to the GoI-PMS students themselves who reported that they were satisfied with the outcome of the talks with the administration.  Therefore, despite the efforts made by the administration to resolve the matter of affordable accommodation for the GoI-PMS students, which was the very first and primary demand of the protesting students (and despite the larger picture of reduction of funds by the government, referred by you too in your report),  and again, despite the GoI-PMS students deciding to withdraw from the protest, some students persisted with their blockade attempts.  It was in this context that the Institute decided to issue show-cause notices asking them to explain their actions. However, till date, no student has been handed down any punitive action such as suspension or expulsion. Further, it is these students who have taken the Institute to court on this matter and the issue is yet to be settled by the court. Therefore, the answer to your question on punitive action is “No” again. 

3. You also quoted a student as saying that following the July protests, the “administration has become more hostile”.  I would like to categorically refute this ‘perception’. Despite vicious and personal attacks on me and some of my colleagues that caused many faculty who are also in administration to be disheartened and demoralized, I must say that we have tried our best to bring back a semblance of normalcy and effective functioning on the Hyderabad campus. 

Following from the time of reopening of the Institute in July 2019, we have 

• conducted direct elections to the Students’ Council (a long-standing demand of the students which was addressed through a muti-campus review committee and accepted);
• appointed three psychological counsellors in our Student Counselling Centre (in the place of only one Counsellor that we had last year) who attend to mental/emotional health issues on a one-on-one basis.
• appointed two full-time faculty in the English Language Cell that provides individual help to students coping with language difficulties, apart from conducting classes;
• constituted a duly-notified Facilitation and Support Cell with representatives from faculty and students to address the concerns of the students in a prompt and responsive manner. 

Furthermore, if any student(s) perceive that strict adherence to norms such as attendance and grading constitutes “hostility” towards students, I can only say that these are some of the norms the Institute has put in place to uphold rigorous academic standards and not in order to be “hostile” to students. 

4. Your latest report dated November 8^th also contains several factual inaccuracies. Please see our responses below.

a) “…a threat of closure looms over the temporary campus that operates from the congested premises of a private school in the neighbouring Ranga Reddy district…the lease of which is about to run out in 2020...” 

Response: No, the current campus has a lease of 5 years beginning May 2019; and the current campus is not congested.

b) “TISS went for expansion without taking required permissions from the University Grants Commission”

Response: All teaching programmes are offered as per the mandatory sanction and clearance of UGC and other regulatory bodies.

5. Finally, we would like to say that contrary to the doomsday predictions that TISS is going to “collapse” and TISS Hyderabad in particular is on the “brink of “collapse”, as projected in your piece, we, faculty and students are committed to its continuance and growth. The admission and placement figures belie your gloomy prediction. We are proud of our students in whom we have nurtured a sense of critical reflection and questioning and we are hopeful that our collective pursuit of social change, for a more democratic and egalitarian society, will not go in vain. 

In the interests of responsible journalism that would include fair and balanced reporting, I would like to once again urge you to either present the points put across in this letter in another piece or publish the letter itself in its entirety. 

With best wishes,

U.Vindhya, Acting Deputy Director, and faculty members of the Management Committee

TISS Hyderabad campus

Response from Nikhila Henry:

I contacted Ms. Vindhya on November 5 and since she did not respond to my calls I sent her a text message saying I am trying to reach her. I had contacted Ms. Vindhya in the past and she knows that I had covered the TISS students’ agitation. She responded to this text on November 6 and I responded to her briefly stating ‘it is about a student’. On the same day, November 6, I informed her that my attempt to reach her was in the context of an allegation levelled by a student and that I needed her version for the story. She said her “colleagues will send a written response if I tell her (presumably in the text) the allegations”. On the same day, I requested her for her email ID as she refused to take my calls. She responded the next day and sent her email ID. That is when I emailed her. In my opinion, I had made it amply clear to Ms. Vindhya over three consecutive days that I was working on a story and that I needed her response for it. It is true that I did not set a deadline. This was under the assumption that as an administrator she would know that I would not be able to hold the story for an unjustifiably long duration.   

In her response, Ms. Vindhya has said that no penal action was taken by the administration because it did not expel or suspend any students. But during the strike and after, the students leading the protests told me that the administration “sent the names of student protestors to the Mumbai head office”. The showcause notices “were issued based on the complaint made by the Hyderabad administration to the Mumbai administration”. The TISS administration has not yet withdrawn the showcause notices and the students have not been informed of the status of the allegations levelled against them, said the students. They have said that action is pending in this case only because they “approached the High Court with a Writ against the closure of the campus”.

The students also told me that while they have not been suspended or expelled, they are being punished through showcause notices and administrative apathy towards their appeals—this has been mentioned in the story as well. Also, while Ms. Vindhya mentions elections conducted by TISS as a measure in good faith, it is not clear why some student protestors were not allowed to participate in the said elections.   

As Ms. Vindhya herself has pointed out that the committee constituted dismissed the charges against the student who wrote the Facebook post, I am not sure why the details of the complaint against this student (which has been mentioned in the copy) should be highlighted in detail.       

The administration’s view that Ms. Vindhya has presented would have found a mention in the copy had she responded on time to either my calls, texts or the queries I had sent her, as I did in the earlier stories I reported during the strike.

Ms. Vindya mentions that the lease period of the campus is five years, which is accurate. I regret the error, and this has been corrected in the story. 

It is important to note that the story is not just about permissions for academic programmes in TISS-Hyderabad, but about miscalculations in TISS’s expansion of infrastructure and faculty postings. The story is centred around TISS-Mumbai and its expansion since 2011. In my prior conversation with Ms. Vindhya, she had categorically told me that she is not aware of TISS’s overall development plans and the budgetary allocation. Here too, Ms. Vindya is talking only about the Hyderabad campus which has seen just nominal growth in terms of academic programmes. In fact, the Hyderabad campus had rolled back one of its academic programmes in 2018. The conflict between the students and the administration in TISS-Hyderabad is also about lack of funding for this campus. 

I stand by the story.  

The Supreme Court will on Thursday decide on reviewing its verdicts in the Sabarimala and Rafale cases.

The top court will give its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking re-examination of its decision to allow entry of women of all age group in Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple and on petitions seeking a review of its clean chit to the Modi government in the Rafale fighter jet deal with French firm Dassault Aviation.

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

The verdicts are last of the major decisions Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will make before he retires this week.

On Wednesday, a bench led by him had ruled that the Office of the Chief Justice fell under the ambit of the Right to Information Act. Gogoi was also on the bench that pronounced verdict on the Ayodhya case on November 9.

Sabarimala case

As many as 65 petitions ― including 56 review petitions and four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas ― were filed after the Supreme Court’s verdict sparked violent protests in Kerala.

In its September 2018 judgement the top court had lifted the ban which prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 from entering shrine in Kerala. The court had called the ban illegal and unconstitutional.

A constitution bench had heard pleas and parties in favour and against a review of the verdict in an open court, including the Nair Service Society, the thantry of the temple, the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Kerala government.

A five-judge headed by CJI Gogoi—with RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra as members—had reserved its decision on February 6. 

Rafale case 

A bench comprising CJI Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph will pronounce verdicts on three review petitions in the Rafale case.

On May 10, the apex court had reserved the decision on the pleas, including one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking a re-examination of its findings that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets.

On December 14, 2018, the apex court dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.

However, while reserving the judgement on the review petitions, the apex court had posed searching questions to the Centre on its deal with France to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets on issues like “waiver of sovereign guarantee” and the absence of technology transfer clause in the IGA pact.

The bench had referred to a judgement in the Lalita Kumari case which said that an FIR is must when information revealed commission of cognizable offence.

“The question is whether you are obliged to follow the Lalita Kumari judgment or not,” the bench had asked.Attorney General K K Venugopal had told the bench that “there has to be a prima facie case, otherwise they (agencies) cannot proceed. The information must disclose commission of cognizable offence”.

Justice Joseph had referred to the earlier deal and asked the Centre as to why the inter-governmental agreement (IGA) on Rafale with the French administration does not have the clause of transfer of technology. “The court cannot decide such technical aspects,” the law officer had said.

On the court’s question of waiver of sovereign guarantee by France in the IGA and its replacement with a letter of comfort, Venugopal had said it was not an “unprecedented practice” and referred to such agreements with Russia and the US where there was such a waiver. “It is a question of national security. No other court in the world will examine a defence deal on these kinds of arguments”, he had said.

Bhushan had submitted that the December 2018 judgement did not deal with the prayer seeking probe into the deal and decided the petition on the premise that it was seeking cancellation of IGA. He had contended that the Centre misled the court by referring to non-existent CAG report in November, 2018 hearing when it is on record that the report came later in February this year.

Bhushan had alleged suppression of material facts from the court by the Centre and said that as many eight critical clauses of the standard defence procurement procedure were dropped in the deal in the meeting of Cabinet Committee on Security in September 2016.

One of the clauses dealt with the aspect that the government can cancel the deal if the information of any involvement of middleman comes to the light, he said.

He had referred to the news articles and said that three experts of Indian Negotiation Team (INT) had also raised the objections to the inflated pricing of the aircraft.

Venugopal had vehemently opposed the submissions and sought dismissals of review petitions, saying basic grounds of these pleas were the same as in the main case.

The government is under obligation to put defence material under cover, he said, adding that “when the security of the country is involved, you do not view it as a contract to build a highway or a dam”.

(With inputs from PTI)

The House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday held the first televised hearing of its impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Democrats are investigating his attempt to withhold U.S. military aid to Ukraine until the country’s President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Bill Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary for Europe and Eurasian affairs, were the first two witnesses to publicly testify in the investigation, after they separately testified privately last month.

Throughout the hearing, Democrats tried to get the witnesses to admit that Trump’s behavior constituted an impeachable offense, while Republicans attempted to discredit the diplomats. Here are seven takeaways from Wednesday’s hearing with Taylor and Kent.

1. Bill Taylor’s Aide Was Told That Trump Cares More About Investigating Joe Biden Than About Ukraine

Taylor revealed new information about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine at Wednesday’s hearing that he had not known about at the time of his private testimony. The ambassador said that last week, an aide told him about a conversation he had with Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union who has become one of the most relevant characters in the investigation.

Taylor said that his aide was at a restaurant with Sondland on July 26 — the day after Trump’s call with Zelensky that prompted the whistleblower to file a complaint — when Sondland called Trump, who the aide apparently overheard ask the EU ambassador about “the investigations.” Sondland reportedly told Trump the Ukrainians were ready to move forward, according to Taylor.

“Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine,” Taylor said in his opening remarks. “Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden which [Rudy] Giuliani was pressing for.”

The Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that it has scheduled one of Taylor’s aides to privately testify on Friday. According to NBC News, that person’s name is David Holmes and is the same staff member who overheard Sondland’s call with Trump.

2. Both Witnesses Used Their Opening Statements To Stress The Importance Of Protecting The U.S.-Ukraine Relationship

Taylor said that there are “two Ukraine stories” going on: one regarding Trump’s impeachment and the whistleblower’s complaint, in which the ambassador said the country is “merely an object”; and a “positive, bipartisan” one where Ukraine is the subject.

The ambassador discussed Ukraine’s struggle to maintain independence from Russia, and looks to Western countries like the United States for guidance about government and democracy. Ukraine has been receiving security assistance from the U.S. in order to protect itself from Russia, which is why Trump’s freezing of the assistance astonished Taylor.

“To withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense,” Taylor said. “It was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy.”

Kent also explained the importance of Ukraine to American foreign policy, saying that the country’s success “is very much in our national interest.”

When Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) asked Taylor how security assistance for Ukraine affects U.S. national security, the ambassador stressed that the U.S. considers Russia and China as adversaries but identifies Ukraine as a strategic partner.

“The Russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings, that they committed to that actually kept the peace in Europe for nearly 70 years. That rule of law ... was violated by the Russians and if we don’t push back on that, on those violations, then that will continue,” Taylor said. “And that, Mr. Chairman, affects us. It affects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in, and our grandchildren.”

3. Both Witnesses Highlighted Concerns About Rudy Giuliani’s Involvement In Ukraine

Taylor said at the hearing that Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, “undercut” U.S. foreign policy by creating an unofficial backchannel to Ukrainian officials. He also said he thought it was “crazy” that the White House considered freezing military aid to Ukraine for political reasons.

Kent built upon Taylor’s concern, saying in his opening statement that it was “unexpected, and most unfortunate, to watch some Americans ― including those who allied themselves with corrupt Ukrainians in pursuit of private agendas ― launch attacks on dedicated public servants.” The diplomat was referencing Giuliani’s disparagement of Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine whom Trump decided to recall in response to conspiracy theories spread by his personal attorney.

Kent added that he realized in mid-August that “Giuliani’s efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting U.S. engagement with Ukraine.”

Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) asked Taylor and Kent whether Giuliani was promoting U.S. national interests or policy while meddling in Ukraine. Both witnesses said no.

“I believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle,” Kent responded. Taylor agreed.

Giuliani told CNN during the hearing that he didn’t do anything wrong, a defense he’s consistently used throughout this investigation. 

4. The Lawyer For Republicans Based A Line Of Questioning On Whether Or Not Trump’s Request Was ‘Outlandish’

GOP lawyer Steve Castor made his debut appearance on Wednesday, and many of his leading questions fell short as Taylor and Kent stuck with what they knew. 

Castor pointed out Taylor’s earlier remarks that Giuliani’s backchannel to Ukrainian officials was an “irregular” way to conduct diplomacy.

“I want to turn to the discussion of the irregular channel you described,” Castor said. “In fairness, this irregular channel of diplomacy, it’s not as outlandish as it could be, is that correct?”

Taylor laughed at the bizarre question before saying that it could, indeed, always be worse.

“It’s not as outlandish as it could be, I agree,” the ambassador said.

The GOP counsel then said Sondland’s involvement in Ukrainian dealings was “certainly not outlandish” despite it not being part of the European Union ambassador’s official duties.

“It’s a little unusual for the U.S. ambassador to the EU to play a role in Ukraine policy,” Taylor retorted.

“OK, it might be irregular, but it’s certainly not outlandish,” Castor said, prompting Taylor to look baffled.

The exchange drew reactionson Twitterfrom observers who teased Castorfor his line of defense for Republicans.

5. Republican Committee Members Filled Their Questions With Conspiracies And Contradictions

Despite spending weeks developing strategies to delegitimize the first public impeachment hearing, Republicans on Wednesday had messy, slipshod questions for the two nonpartisan witnesses.

Part of Republicans’ arguments were based on the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories found in far-right media that initially fueled Trump’s suspicions of Ukraine and his push to investigate the Bidens. Several GOP members also tried to make the argument that Trump did not commit a crime because his attempt at a quid pro quo was exactly that ― an attempt. 

The GOP’s counsel introduced confusion with his bizarre questions, including the “outlandish” ones, plus a query directed at Taylor about whether Trump should be upset by reports of Ukrainian officials opposing his presidential candidacy. Taylor responded that the president mentioned during his 2016 campaign that he might let Russia keep Crimea, and that that “sentiment is amazingly inflammatory to all Ukrainians.”

While the questions may make good television clips for Trump and his base, they often left Kent and Taylor looking baffled and confused about how to respond to right-wing conspiracy theories.

6. The GOP Criticized Democrats For Not Bringing In Direct Witnesses Despite That Being The White House’s Fault

Throughout the hearing ― especially during the lightning round where lawmakers were given five minutes to question the witnesses ― Republicans remarked that Taylor and Kent’s testimony cannot be taken seriously because they are not direct witnesses of any wrongdoing by Trump.

The White House’s own Twitter account posted during the hearing: “Don’t rely on second, third, and fourth-hand accounts.” 

But in reality, White House orders blocking direct witnesses from testifying is the reason that Democrats have been unable to speak with more people who have firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing.

Some of the witnesses Democrats have subpoenaed to appear before the investigating committees are White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and former national security adviser John Bolton. All refused to testify because of a White House order directing employees of the administration to not comply with the impeachment investigation.

Bolton’s former deputy, Charles Kupperman, filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to determine whether a House subpoena has more power than the White House directive. If the judge rules in favor of the House, Kupperman and Bolton both said they will testify.

7. Impeachment Investigators Clashed Along Party Lines When It Came To Sharing The Whistleblower’s Identity

GOP members repeatedly brought up the fact that the whistleblower who filed the bombshell complaint that spurred the impeachment investigation remains anonymous. Those same members also criticized Schiff for not bringing the whistleblower in to testify. (Schiff has said that there’s no need to risk the anonymous intelligence official’s safety when other witnesses have corroborated the complaint’s allegations.)

Several Republicans, including Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), accused Schiff of previously speaking to the whistleblower and refusing to release details of such alleged discussions with the rest of the Intelligence Committee. The chairman stressed throughout the hearing that he has not communicated with the whistleblower, and that accusations otherwise are false.

“We’ll never get a chance to question” the person that “started it all,” Jordan said, referencing the whistleblower.

“I’d be glad to have the person who ‘started it all’ come in and testify,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said in response. “President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there.”

Trump has repeatedly called for revealing the whistleblower’s identity, and accused anyone who talked to the official of treason. He’s also pushed the media to unmask the whistleblower. Such remarks have led Democrats and the whistleblower’s lawyers to be increasingly concerned for the person’s safety.

The attorneys sent a cease-and-desist letter earlier this month to the White House’s legal counsel, urging the president to stop the dangerous rhetoric that could put the whistleblower’s life at risk. They also said their client would be willing to answer Republicans’ questions in writing, though the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), rejected the invitation.

After Wednesday’s impeachment hearing, Republicans tried to pass a motion to subpoena the whistleblower to come testify. The motion was tabled, meaning it did not pass.

Climate change is already wreaking havoc on public health around the globe and the impacts will continue to mount as the crisis fuels prolonged heatwaves, extreme weather events and infectious disease, according to a new report published Wednesday by top medical journal The Lancet.

The Lancet Countdown is a comprehensive annual assessment tracking links between climate change and human health. This year’s report outlines how two potential emissions pathways ― business-as-usual and meeting the goals of the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement ― will impact human well-being. It finds that without immediate action to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, climate change “will come to define the health of people at every stage of their lives” and “challenge already overwhelmed health systems.”

Renee Salas, an emergency medicine doctor at Massachusetts General Hospital and lead author of an accompanying brief focused on U.S. impacts, told reporters this week that the crisis is “one of the most pressing health emergencies.”

“With every degree of warming, a child born today faces a future where their health and well-being will be increasingly impacted by the realities and dangers of a warmer world,” she said. “Climate change and the air pollution from fossil fuels that are driving it threatens the child’s health starting in the mother’s womb and only accumulates from there.” 

The last four years were the four hottest on record, with 2018 coming in fourth behind 2016, 2015 and 2017. Globally, an additional 220 million people age 65 or older were exposed to heatwaves last year, topping the previous record of 209 million in 2015, according to findings. Rising temperatures are having major implications on the global labor force, resulting in an estimated 133.6 billion lost work hours in 2018 ― up from 88.5 billion in 2000.

Global warming has caused a spike in infectious disease, including the mosquito-borne tropical virus dengue fever. According to the report, 9 of the 10 most suitable years for the transmission of dengue have occurred since 2000. Additionally, the number of days suitable for Vibrio, a pathogen that can cause diarrheal disease and infection, have doubled since the early 1980s. Children are among those most susceptible to such diseases.

The 48-page analysis also documents the increasing threat of wildfires and the impact of climate change on crop yields. Seventy-seven percent of all countries saw an increase in human exposures to wildfire between 2015 to 2018, compared to the period between 2001 and 2014. The potential health effects from wildfires are extensive, from death and injury to respiratory problems from smoke inhalation. Meanwhile, drought, extreme weather and other factors have led to a decline in yield potential for major crops like soybeans, rice and wheat, putting millions at risk for food insecurity and nutrient deficiencies. 

The number of premature deaths from ambient air pollution in in 2016 remained steady from 2015 to 2016, at an estimated 2.9 million globally. 

Nick Watts, a medical doctor and executive director of Lancet Countdown, noted that the global average life expectancy is 71 years, meaning a child born today could by the end of their life experience a world that is 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. 

“We have no idea what that looks like from a public health perspective, but we know it is catastrophic,” he said during a press call. “We know that it has the potential to undermine the last 50 years of gains in public health.”

Here in the U.S., heatwaves are becoming more frequent and severe, according to the companion policy brief. This has led to an increase in exposures among adults age 65 and older and an estimated 81.4 million lost labor hours in 2018 alone, with agriculture and industry among the most impacted sectors. Last year, 14 climate- and weather-related disasters in the U.S. caused $91 billion in damages, the fourth-highest annual total since 1980. Those disasters include a string of devastating wildfires in California and hurricanes Florence and Michael.

Over 64,000 premature deaths in the U.S. in 2016 were linked to fine particulate pollution. 

Along with warning about the consequences of inaction, the report alternatively lays out what could be gained by fulfilling the goals of the Paris accord, which aims to stave off the worst impacts of climate change by keeping the global temperature well below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. It notes that a child born today would see a complete phase-out of coal in the United Kingdom by their sixth birthday and global emissions reach net zero by the time they turn 31. 

“The changes seen in this alternate pathway could result in cleaner air, safer cities, and more nutritious food, coupled with renewed investment in health systems and vital infrastructure,” the report states.

The assessment, which includes research from 35 academic institutions, comes against a backdrop of massive youth-led protests to demand swift climate action and growing calls in the United States for a Green New Deal, an ambitious federal policy to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The surge in activism stems from a dire United Nations report late last year that warned world governments had just 12 years to prevent potentially irreversible climate change.

In a video posted last month by independent film studio Rubber Republic, Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet journal, said the world’s doctors and other health professionals “have a responsibility, an obligation to engage in all kinds of nonviolent, social protest to address the climate emergency.”

“Children are marching in the streets because they recognize that their health and wellbeing and quality of life are being robbed,” Salas told reporters this week. 

“Acting on climate change is a prescription for health,” she said. 

NEW YORK (AP) — A Roman Catholic bishop named by Pope Francis to investigate the church’s response to clergy sexual abuse in Buffalo, New York, has himself been accused of sexual abuse of a child, an attorney for the alleged victim notified the church this week.

The attorney informed Catholic officials in New Jersey that he is preparing a lawsuit on behalf of a client who says he was molested by Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio in the mid-1970s, when DiMarzio was a parish priest in Jersey City.

DiMarzio said there is no truth to the accusation.

“I am just learning about this allegation,” he said in a statement Tuesday to The Associated Press. “In my nearly 50-year ministry as a priest, I have never engaged in unlawful or inappropriate behavior and I emphatically deny this allegation. I am confident I will be fully vindicated.”

In a letter sent Monday to the church’s Newark, New Jersey, archdiocese, Boston attorney Mitchell Garabedian said 56-year-old Mark Matzek alleges he was repeatedly abused by DiMarzio and a second priest, the late Rev. Albert Mark, when he was an altar boy at St. Nicholas Church and a student at St. Nicholas School.

Last month, Pope Francis tapped DiMarzio to investigate the church’s Buffalo Diocese, where Bishop Joseph Malone has come under fire for his handling of a burgeoning clergy abuse scandal that has roiled the diocese and prompted calls for his resignation.

“The investigation of the diocese of Buffalo by Bishop DiMarzio is tainted because of these allegations,” Garabedian said in an interview with the AP. “There needs to be a truly neutral investigator to determine whether Bishop Malone should resign,” adding that the investigation should be led by a law enforcement agency.

Adriana Rodriguez, press secretary for the Brooklyn Diocese, said DiMarzio has completed his report on the Buffalo Diocese and has submitted it to the Vatican. DiMarzio and Malone are in Rome this week for a previously scheduled visit of New York bishops to the Holy See.

Garabedian said the notice he sent to the Newark Archdiocese briefly describes Matzek’s allegations and the damage he has allegedly suffered, while demanding $20 million in compensation.

Maria Margiotta, the spokeswoman for the Newark Archdiocese, said it has received Garabedian’s letter and reported Matzek’s allegations to law enforcement.

Garabedian told the AP he plans to file the lawsuit on Matzek’s behalf next month, after New Jersey opens a two-year “look back” period in which sex abuse victims will be permitted to file lawsuits without regard to the statute of limitations, which typically limits the amount of time in which an alleged victim may file suit.

DiMarzio completed his review of the Buffalo Diocese, known as an “apostolic visitation,” last month. He said he made three trips to the diocese over seven days and interviewed nearly 80 clergymen and parishioners.

Americans are stressed out. And, in many cases, money is the top cause of that stress. 

In fact, a recent survey by Credit Sesame found that 82% of those who struggle with credit card debt experience stress. Forty percent feel shame. Many have even cried over their situation (25%). 

But if you’ve ever faced money problems, you know the consequences of all that stress are much more than a few tears. From impaired cognitive functioning to serious diseases, here’s how stressing about money can affect your mind and body.

Your system elicits a “fight-or-flight” response

The body’s fight-or-flight response developed as a survival mechanism, allowing our ancestors to react quickly when faced with an immediate threat. When it kicks in, a flood of stress hormones (such as adrenaline and cortisol) is released to help you either stay and battle whatever adversary is in front of you or high-tail it out of there.

Though you may not have to worry about fending off predators in the wild, modern-day threats, such as a beastly financial problem, can set off the same type of reaction.

“The fight-or-flight response is hard on the body. It drains us,” said Aimee Daramus, a clinical psychologist in Chicago. Daramus said this type of stress can cause muscles to tense up to the point of serious pain. It also impairs the functioning of the immune system, making you more vulnerable to a lot of other illnesses. “It can cause headache and stomachache, even if you don’t consciously feel stressed,” she added.

You start making bad decisions, even though you know better

Even if you consider yourself an intelligent, rational person, your ability to make good choices is impaired by financial stress.

“Under stress, blood flow and electrical activity are reduced in the frontal and prefrontal lobes and increased in the survival parts of the brain, such as the amygdala,” Daramus said. Since these parts of the brain help with skills such as problem-solving, concentration, planning and impulse control, the reduced functioning in those areas can lead to poor decision-making. 

When you’re worried or panicked about your financial situation, your decisions become more impulsive and driven by survival. “We act quickly and decisively, but not always as accurately as usual,” Daramus said. For example, you might take out a payday loan, even though you know the fees are equivalent to 300% APR or higher, because it solves your immediate cash-flow problem. Or you might spend money on luxuries that don’t make financial sense because it provides temporary relief from that feeling of stress.

Anxiety, depression and other mental health issues may arise

Considering that money is such an integral part of our lives, constant worry over it can lead to more serious psychological symptoms down the road. “When we are stressed about money, we can become highly anxious and even depressed,” said Carla Marie Manly, a clinical psychologist in California. 

Being burdened by large sums of debt, for instance, has been shown to take a major toll on mental health and, in some serious cases, even lead to suicidal thoughts. 

A survey by The Ascent of Americans with at least $1,000 in debt found additional troubling links between happiness, fulfillment, self-esteem and financial distress. For instance, 38% of respondents said that their debt burden prevented them from sleeping well at night. Forty-eight percent said their debt negatively affected their optimism, while 47% said their debt negatively affected their self-esteem. Not surprisingly, 97% of respondents believed they would be happier if they didn’t have debt.

Chronic stress leads to serious physical ailments

Short-term stress is undoubtedly hard on the mind and body, but Manly said that chronic stress can lead to more serious and long-lasting harm. 

“When adrenaline and cortisol levels are continually elevated, physiological damage occurs. As a result, many of those who suffer from chronic stress have greater rates of heart disease, diabetes, chronic sleep problems and other health issues,” Manly said. 

Your risk of substance abuse and addiction increases

Unfortunately, dealing with stress and other health issues related to financial stress is a known risk factor for substance abuse, and those experiencing money problems have increased vulnerability to addiction and relapse. 

For example, one study conducted for the School of Public Health at the State University of New York found a direct link between increased financial stress and increased drinking and smoking, especially among older men. A high level of stress has also been found to be a predictor of continued use of opiates, such as heroin. And often, addiction comes with its own financial difficulties, creating a vicious circle of stress and substance abuse.

For those in poverty, the situation is much worse

Though the symptoms of financial stress are very real and can be quite serious, there’s a difference between living paycheck-to-paycheck and living in poverty. And that difference is life-altering for those who live on the wrong side of the poverty line. 

“Those who are poverty-stricken suffer from an inability to have their basic needs met,” Manly said. “Humans need access to shelter, food and clothing, and health care. When these basics are not accessible, health definitely suffers.”

Those health consequences can be particularly devastating for children, Daramus added. “Dangerous environments, crowded living situations and malnutrition can cause brain damage that’s tough to fix.” In this situation, the frontal and prefrontal areas never form correctly, which means the child may develop less impulse control, impaired thinking and decision-making, and poor attention and concentration, among other issues.  

Don’t let money problems hurt your health

When you’re struggling financially, things can seem hopeless. And the truth is that the solution is rarely simple, especially for those who can barely make ends meet. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t help out there for you. 

Try credit counseling: If you’re in over your head financially and don’t know where to start, a credit counselor can help. Available through nonprofits at little to no cost, credit counseling helps you create a plan for getting your finances back on track. Check out the National Foundation for Credit Counseling to find help near you.

Attend therapy: If you’re experiencing a decline in your mental health due to financial problems and stress, it’s a good idea to work with a therapist who can serve as a sounding board and recommend treatment. There are several ways to make therapy more affordable.

Seek healthy coping mechanisms: When you feel stressed out all the time, it can be tempting to pick up unhealthy habits that exacerbate your physical and mental symptoms. That’s why it’s so important to find simple, healthy methods of managing stress, in addition to getting help from professionals. Try running, cooking, meditating or another relaxing activity that helps calm your nerves and refocus your mind.

Even Bruce Wayne no doubt wishes he had the work ethic, skill set, aptitude for time management and bank account of Jennifer Lopez. And given that the multi-hyphenate entertainer has already conquered the worlds of singing, dancing, acting and most recently pole-dancing, she’s now considering getting in on the superhero game. 

The “Hustlers” star recently sat down with the future Batman himself, Robert Pattinson, for a Variety “Actors On Actors” interview this week, and even he agreed that Lopez would make an “awesome” defender of Gotham. 

“You’re going to be Batman,” Lopez told Pattinson in a lively conversation about their wildly different careers. “I think you’ll be a great Batman… an awesome Batman.”

“You too,” the “Twilight” alum responded. “You would be, as well.”

“I could be Batman too,” Lopez agreed, already nailing the requisite hand on the hip pose. “Why not?” 

She added, “There’s a drive to Batman of why he does what he does that I think as an actor would be fun to explore.”

And to all that we say, DC Universe cut a check and light up the bat signal because we need to make this happen. 

Alas, “The Batman” starring Pattinson is already in development, with Zoe Kravitz coming aboard as Catwoman, Paul Dano as The Riddler and possibly Colin Farrell as The Penguin, so Lopez will have to put her dreams on ice for the time being. 

But if the Ben in Bennifer 1.0 got his shot at playing the role ― how quickly we all forgot Batfleck happened ― the least we could do is offer up the same opportunity to Lopez. 

In the meantime, Lopez will have her hands full with perhaps an even more perilous mission: performing at the 2020 Super Bowl halftime show. The “Dance Again” singer is set to dazzle at the big game alongside Shakira, and revealed she hopes the moment will “bring everybody together” watching at home. 

“We’re both excited to have been given the opportunity to do that, as two Latin women, in Miami,” the site of the game, Lopez told Pattinson. 

“I think it’s important in this day and age for two Latin women to be standing on that stage — when Latinos are being treated a certain way in this country, or looked at a certain way — to show that we have a really specific and beautiful culture and worth and value, and we bring something to this country that’s necessary,” she said. “I think that’s going to be an amazing moment. That night, I want it to be a celebration of who we are. All of us, because we’re in this together.”

The Supreme Court on Thursday referred the Sabarimala case for review to a seven-judge bench. The ruling was made a five-judge bench led CJI Gogoi. Justices Chandrachud, Nariman dissented, LiveLaw reports. 

Gogoi said cases on female genital mutilation and Muslim women’sn entry to mosque had also been referred to a larger bench before.

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

The court said the entry of women into places of worship is not limited to the Sabarimala temple, it also involves entry of women into mosques, Bar&Bench quoted.

As many as 65 petitions ― including 56 review petitions and four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas ― were filed after the Supreme Court’s verdict sparked violent protests in Kerala.

The Kerala government has deployed over 10,000 security personnel in preparation for the Sabarimala season which will begin on Saturday, November 16, Mathrubhumi reports.

In its September 2018 judgement the top court had lifted the ban which prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 from entering shrine in Kerala. The court had called the ban illegal and unconstitutional.

A constitution bench had heard pleas and parties in favour and against a review of the verdict in an open court, including the Nair Service Society, the thantry of the temple, the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Kerala government.

A five-judge headed by CJI Gogoi—with RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra as members—had reserved its decision on February 6. 

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed review petitions against its 2018 order on the Rafale deal, saying the review petitions were found to be without merit and upholding the Rafale jets deal. 

Reports said the court also closed the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi. The court said, “Rahul needs to be more careful in the future.”

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

The top court was hearing petitions seeking a review of its judgment giving a clean chit to the Centre in the Rafale deal.

On 14 December, 2018, the apex court had dismissed all petitions seeking a court-monitored probe in the Rafale deal and said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France. 

The court had reserved the decision on the pleas, including one filed by Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, on 10 May. Two other review petitions have been filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh and advocate Vineet Dhanda.

The Centre had claimed that the documents cited in the pleas were “stolen from the Defence ministry” and sought the dismissal of the review petition. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the government’s preliminary objections claiming “privilege” over them. 

It had noted that all the three documents were in “public domain”. The Hindu, a Business Standard report quoted the bench as saying, had the right to publish those documents as the “right of such publication would seem to be in consonance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech”.

(With PTI inputs)

India is at the cusp of a clean and green mobility revolution, and with air pollution choking our very existence, this is truly a step in the right direction. With environment sustainability as the centrepiece, electric vehicles promise to provide cleaner air, economical modes of transport and eventually, financial security in the long-term.

A recent report by The Climate Group states that India is one of the top three EV100 regions – EV100 is a global corporate initiative to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles. This presents a huge opportunity for automobile giants to be a part of this evolution, which also holds the promise of being an integral part of the global movement that aims to promote a healthy and sustainable environment.

Over the last 95 years, automobile giant MG Motor has become synonymous with credibility and innovation. Earlier this year, the brand launched the MG Hector, a true revolution in digital connectivity features for automobiles. The SUV has received an overwhelming response from the Indian market. Over 38,000 units of Hector have been booked until now, and in the months of July-September, MG Motor sold 6,134 units of the SUV.

Already known as a global forerunner in the field of electromobility, MG Motor is taking yet another revolutionary step, with the launch of the MG ZS EV, an SUV that aims to spark change and promote environmental conservation through the use of electric vehicles. The switch to electric vehicles is the future for the world, including India. In fact, the Indian government has set ambitious targets to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles. There are incentives being offered to automobile makers to develop new EV models and manufacturing components, like lithium-ion batteries. The Indian government has created momentum through its Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Scheme that encourages the adoption of electric vehicles, with a goal of reaching 30% EV penetration by 2030.

MG Motor’s new campaign featuring Benedict Cumberbatch, #ChangeWhatYouCan, emphasises taking small steps individually to make a huge difference. The association with the acclaimed actor is because both him and the brand share similar values that revolve around community-related causes. The actor is well known for voicing his opinion on gender equality in the entertainment industry. He was recently seen at the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, taking a stand against climate change.

MG Motor has previously launched a range of initiatives to spread awareness on EV mobility and continues to partner with global players to bring about a revolution!

The MG ZS EV is a global offering that blends in the brand’s capabilities in electromobility and state-of-the-art technology and design. This variant is likely to pack in a 44.5 kWH lithium-ion battery coupled with a 150hp electric motor. The charging time is pegged at 7 hours using a 7kW AC charger and 40 minutes using a 50kW DC fast-charger.

Having won the hearts of the Indian population with the MG Hector, the brand is marching ahead with the expansion of its product portfolio in the country. It aims to leverage the untapped EV potential in India by launching the all-electric ZS SUV as its next offering. This variant is already being sold in international markets like UK, Thailand and China. In fact, the carmaker has already received 2,000 orders within two months of its UK launch.

Founded in the UK in 1924, Morris Garages vehicles were much sought after by many celebrities, including the British Prime Ministers and even the British Royal Family for their styling, elegance, and spirited performance. The MG Car Club, set up in 1930 at Abingdon in the UK, has more than a million loyal fans, making it by far one of the world’s largest clubs for a car brand. MG has evolved into a modern, futuristic and innovative brand over the last 95 years. MG Motor India has begun its manufacturing operations at its car manufacturing plant at Halol in Gujarat.

The EV revolution is certainly not going to be a silent one - with MG Motor India helming the state of affairs in electromobility, this journey is going to be pleasant and a clean one for sure!

Delhi’s air quality remained in the “severe category” on Thursday morning with schools remaining shut. A thick blanket of smog continued to cover the national capital with an overall AQI of 460 this morning. 

PTI reported that the Dwarka Sector 8 air monitoring centre recorded an air quality index of 496 and Nehru Nagar and JLN Stadium 492.

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

An AQI between 201 and 300 is considered ‘poor’, 301-400 ‘very poor’ and 401-500 ‘severe’, while the AQI above 500 falls in the severe plus category.

However, none of this stopped the NGO Prayas, run by a former DGP and Chairperson of Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights Amod Kanth from holding their Children’s Day event ‘Run for Children’. 

A bunch of children were made to run on the streets of Delhi, most of them without air pollution masks, at a time when the government has ordered schools to remain shut and asked people to not exercise or do other outdoor activities.  

The photos of the event went viral on social media. 

The thick smog can be seen clearly in the photos as these children went for the run. Parents, whose children participated in the event, were not every happy about it either. 

Reports said that even at the marathon children fell sick. “Children are falling ill due to toxic air. Some of the participants have also missed the marathon due to pollution today. One boy while running puked and is now taking rest,” ANI quoted Payal, a parent at the event as saying.

Huffpost India has reached out to Amod Kanth over the issue and will update this copy when he responds. 

People on social media also called out Kanth and the NGO for not cancelling the event and putting the lives of these children in danger. 

BENGALURU, Karnataka: The Supreme Court’s verdict on Wednesday, which allows 17 disqualified Karnataka MLAs to contest by-elections, even as it upheld then speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar’s ruling on disqualifying them, has placed the ruling BJP and its chief minister B.S. Yediyurappa in a win-win situation. 

By-polls to 15 out of these 17 assembly seats which fell vacant following the disqualification of MLAS are scheduled on December 5.

The onus to retain their constituencies is now squarely on the 15 former Congress-JD(S) MLAs, most of whom will be getting a BJP ticket. 

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

Yediyurappa has already done the spadework for the 15 disqualified MLAs to get a headstart in the by-polls by generously sanctioning funds to  their constituencies, much to the dismay of other BJP legislators. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow them to contest is seen as a victory in BJP circles, as the party  would have had to fall back on aspirants back home to contest in the 15 constituencies which have been Congress, JD(S) strongholds.

“The  BJP has never  won in the 15 constituencies (except  K.R. Puram and Yeshwanthpur in 2008) and by fielding  the disqualified MLAs from the Congress and JD(S), chances of the  party’s victory are high, as they have established themselves. The party needs  eight MLAs for the government to continue and we are confident of getting the numbers,’” said BJP state spokesperson Vaman Acharya.

16 of the 17 disqualified MLAs joined the BJP on Thursday.

According to BJP sources, tickets would be given to 13 of the 15 former  legislators, with Athani (Belagavi district) and Ranebennur (Haveri district) likely to go to party workers. 

“It’s the party’s responsibility to give tickets to all as only because of them the BJP government would be formed. They resigned their  assembly seats at the behest of the party’s central leadership. While tickets will be given, the onus of getting elected is on the candidates,” said a senior BJP functionary.

Revolt in the ranks

But the move has resulted in dissent in some constituencies—in Hoskote   BJP aspirant Sharat Bachegowda, son of BJP M B.N. Bachgowda, has openly rebelled against the party as the ticket  is expected to be given to disqualified Congress MLA M.T.B. Nagaraj. He rejected the chairmanship of the Karnataka Housing Board offered by Yediyurappa and has decided to contest independently. Sharat has received support from unexpected quarters—the JD(S)—with former CM H.D. Kumaraswamy’s son Nikhil accompanying him on Thursday to file his nomination papers from Hoskote.

In Belagavi district, four-time former BJP  MLA Raju Kage has said he will join the Congress. He was seeking a ticket from Kagwad, which is now expected to go to  former Congress MLA Srimanth Balasaheb Patil.  

The Congress, which was expecting the court to uphold the former speaker’s ruling of not allowing the  disqualified MLAs to contest elections until the tenure of the present assembly (2023) ends, is looking to exploit the revolt in the BJP  camp. 

“Allowing the  disqualified MLAs to contest defeats the very purpose of the anti-defection Act. It has legitimised the corrupt practices of MLAs and given the stamp of approval to topple a government, when there is audio-visual proof of  Yediyurappa saying it was done at the behest of the central leadership,” said Congress MLC K. Prakash Rathod.

While 9 December (when  the results will be announced) will  decide the fate of Yediyurappa and the BJP government in  Karnataka, BJP sources claim the verdict is in favour of the chief minister for now.  Post by-polls, if the party performs well, the new challenge for the CM will be accommodating the newly elected MLAs into the cabinet, which  has 16 berths to be filed.

“Though the defections may have been engineered by our party leaders,  the Congress-JD(S) MLAs resigned for various reasons. Majority of them were former CM Siddaramaiah’s supporters and it cannot be said  monetary consideration was the sole reason. Some of the disqualified MLAs are capable of funding a party’s entire poll expenditure,” said a senior BJP leader.

While the head priest of Sabarimala temple and several Kerala politicians have welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to review its September 2018 order, Bindu Ammini, one of the first women to enter the temple last year after the verdict, said it did not augur well for the country’s future.

Ammini told The NewsMinute on Thursday that the verdict “might turn out to be like the Ayodhya judgment” and could destroy the country’s secular fabric.  

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

She told TNM, “It’s strange and surprising that the review pleas have been referred to a larger bench. I strongly feel this might turn out to be another Ayodhya judgment, that is, a politically motivated verdict, which can potentially destroy the secular fabric and the constitutional values of our country. It does not augur well for the country when the courts become political, and when the judiciary is politically coloured.”

Bindu Ammini, a lawyer from Kozhikode, and Kanakadurga, a Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation employee from Malappuram, were the first women to enter the shrine after the 2018 verdict. Their visit prompted the temple priest to conduct purification rituals.

The two women then had to go into hiding fearing threats to their security. They approached the Supreme Court, which ordered the Kerala government to provide them with adequate security.

On Thursday, Kandararu Rajeevaru, the head priest said he respected the SC decision to refer last September’s verdict to a seven-judge bench.

“This gives us hope. This will strengthen the beliefs of devotees,” he told PTI.

Rahul Easwar, grandson of former Sabarimala priest Kandararu Maheswararu and chief of the Ayyappa Dharma Sena, said the decision was a “pro faith judgment” and nobody should interfere in matters of faith.

Pandalam Royal family member Sasikumar Varma, one of the petitioners who asked for the review, also said he was happy with the court’s decision.

“The court understood the feelings of the devotees and transferred the petitions to be reviewed by a seven-judge bench. This means there was some error in the earlier judgment. We feel relieved and happy that the SC has decided to review its earlier verdict. This is Lord Ayyappa’s blessing,” he told PTI.

The Sabarimala temple will open on November 16 and its annual two-month-long pilgrim season will begin from November 17.

Politicians react

Kerala’s leader of Opposition Ramesh Chennithala asked the Left-led state government “not to create issues” by providing security and taking women in the 10-50 age group to offer worship at the Ayyappa temple.

The Supreme Court had on Thursday said that there was no stay on its 2018 order allowing all women entry.

“Just because there is no stay of the September 28 verdict, the LDF government must try not to create issues by providing security and allowing women to enter Sabarimala. The state government must not implement its earlier agenda of taking women in the banned age group to the hill shrine,” Chennithala said.

Former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy said the new decision will help in protecting the faith of devotees and hoped the pilgrimage season will be peaceful.

Senior BJP leader Kummanam Rajasekharan said the review petitions being referred to a seven-judge bench point to the fact that there was some apparent error in the earlier verdict.

“The government must show restraint and wait for the larger bench’s verdict. In case women pilgrims in the banned age group try to offer worship, government must prevent them from doing so,” Rajashekharan said.

The Kerala government has deployed over 10,000 security personnel for this year’s pilgrimage. The state had witnessed violent protests after the LDF government led by CM Pinarayi Vijayan had decided to implement the Supreme Court verdict. 

(With PTI inputs)

Finding new products is usually a matter of scrolling forums, reading reviews and watching YouTube videos. And while picking up skin care recommendations from friends is great, getting suggestions from professionals is better. 

We went straight to the source and spoke with top dermatologists to learn the moisturizers, serums, masks and more that aren’t getting the love they deserve. Here they are, in no particular order.

HuffPost may receive a share from purchases made via links on this page.

1. Theraplex Healing Emollient 

When you’ve tried everything to heal your skin, turn to this product for real results. “For dry skin, especially hands, Theraplex Healing Emollient can be the right answer,” said Anjali Vekaria, a board-certified dermatologist at The Dermatology Specialists in New York. Recommended by eczema experts, this emollient can be used on the body, hands and even lips. It uses an ingredient called hydrosilicone, which allows moisture to penetrate deep into skin.

$27.50 at Dermstore

2. FixMySkin 1% Hydrocortisone Healing Lip Balm

You’ll need to try something medicated when dry lips turn from an annoyance to a bloody problem. “For those with already chapped or irritated lips, FixMySkin 1% Hydrocortisone Healing Lip Balm is a great solution and avoids many of the common allergens and irritants in other products.” Vekaria said. There’s also a vanilla-flavored lip balm if you prefer something with a yummy scent.

$11 at LovelySkin

3. Joesoef Skin Care Anti-Acne Soap

Although it’s pricey for a bar of soap (each costs a little more than $10), Vekaria said the sulfur in this cleanser can be great for those with acne, rosacea or seborrheic dermatitis. “Joesoef Skin Care’s Anti-Acne Soap with sulfur is an effective product for decreasing microorganisms that often make these conditions worse,” she told HuffPost. Just rinse well to avoid the strong sulfur smell from lingering.

$35 for a 3-pack on Amazon

4. L’Oreal Revitalift Derm Intensives 10% Pure Glycolic Acid Serum

While you’re sure to be familiar with L’Oreal, when’s the last time you tried its skin care?

If you’re looking to even skin tone and reduce wrinkles and dark spots, Shereene Idriss, a dermatologist at New York’s Union Square Laser Dermatology (you may already follow her on Instagram), suggests this drugstore product. “I love the L’Oreal Revitalift Derm Intensives 10% Pure Glycolic Acid Serum, as it’s effective at toning and soothing skin. A little goes a long way,” Idriss said.

$29.99 from Ulta

5. Embryolisse Moisturizers

This French brand’s moisturizers, like its Lait Creme Concentre, are also recommended by Idriss. “The face moisturizers from Embryolisse are great since they provide a ton of moisture. I often apply mine before makeup as a primer,” she said. It’s formulated with aloe vera and shea butter to nourish skin, and has a light texture that makes it work well as a primer.

$28 at Dermstore

6. Vaseline Intensive Care Advanced Repair Lotion 

For dry skin on the body, there’s no need to spend money on expensive moisturizers to hydrate. “Despite countless numbers of products that have come to the market, nothing beats the moisturizing benefits of this lotion,” said Joshua Zeichner, dermatologist and director of cosmetic and clinical research in dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “Triple purified petrolatum protects the skin and this easy-to-spread, light lotion will not leave you feeling heavy or greasy.”

$8.49 at Target

7. Kamedis Eczema Therapy Cream 

Those with eczema — or other forms of dry, itchy skin — will like that this cruelty-free cream is proven to work. “Besides the traditional skin protectants, this cream contains a blend of Chinese botanicals that have been clinically shown to improve the signs and symptoms of eczema,” Zeichner said. “They also have been shown to help balance the skin’s microbiome, which is the collection of bacteria that normally live on the skin and becomes disrupted in conditions like eczema or dry skin.” It’s an Allure Best of Beauty 2019 Award Winner, too.

$20.99 on Kamedis

8. Isdin Eryfotona Actinica SPF 50+

No good skin care list is complete without a sunscreen, and this one was recommended by two dermatologists we spoke to because of its ability to actually repair sun-damaged skin. “This is a new sunscreen product with SPF 50 and repairsomes that help repair sun-damaged cells in your skin,” said dermatologist Gary Goldenberg of Goldenberg Dermatology in New York. “The beauty of this product is that it’s very cosmetically appealing ― it’s light and rubs in easily.”

Dermatologist Rachel Nazarian of Schweiger Dermatology Group in New York said, “It’s a smarter way to wear sunscreen for my sun-worshiping patients … although I can’t believe they still exist!!”

$55 on Amazon

9. PCA SKIN Ideal Restorative Eye Complex

Goldenberg recommends this eye cream for its moisturizing-but-not-greasy texture, along with its ability to treat skin. “It helps to restore and nourish the skin around the eyes without causing acne and breakouts. One of the ingredients is niacinamide, which has been shown to improve health of skin cells,” he said.

$88 on Amazon

10. Bioderma Atoderm Ultra-Nourishing Anti-Irritation Shower Oil

Bioderma is famous for its makeup remover, but Goldenberg loves its shower oil, too. “This product is great for in-shower use for patients with dry, sensitive skin, or even psoriasis and eczema. It’s moisturizing and nourishing, improving skin hydration. And it doesn’t cause acne and breakouts, despite the fact that it’s oil-based,” he said.

$19.90 on Amazon

11. Heliocare Daily Use Antioxidant Formula Capsules

Nazarian recommends Heliocare for its protective effects on the skin, though it doesn’t provide any sun protection on its own. “Essentially, I take this as a daily supplement; many years of clinical trials and research has shown that it protects skin against oxidative stress, damage from daily pollution, visible light and ultraviolet radiation,” she said.

$29.99 at Walgreens

12. Vanicream Lite Lotion

For a simple, no frills and affordable moisturizer, this is it. “This company never seems to break through to the mass public but their products are phenomenal,” Nazarian said. “They are formulated without dyes, lanolin, parabens and added perfumes — they’re wonderful for sensitive skin people — and they contain ingredients that strengthen and support healthy skin. The packaging isn’t fancy or glamorous, but it’s what’s on the inside that counts!”

$12.59 at Target

13. Conture Kinetic HydraMask

The Conture mask not only comes with a built-in brush, but promises results, too. “This mask is packed full of antioxidants to brighten, combat free radical damage and calm the skin,” said Dendy Engleman, a dermatologist at Medical Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery in New York. “The added amino acids replenish moisture, which in turn strengthens the skin barrier. This is a must for improving dull-looking skin and anti-aging.” 

$56 at Nordstrom

14. Epionce Lytic Gel Cleanser

“I like this cleanser for oily skin because it removes dirt and grime without stripping the skin of its natural oils, which will cause oil production to go into overdrive,” Engleman said. Though ideal for oily skin, it’s gentle enough for all skin types because it cleanses without disturbing the skin’s moisture barrier. Menthol and willow bark in the formulation calm inflammation.

$36 at Dermstore

15. BetterYou Magnesium Oil 

“Magnesium helps reduce inflammation caused by E-selectin, which is a molecule that causes inflammation in the endothelial layer of the skin,” Engleman said. Why is this important for skin? “As inflammation is the root of most things evil in health, magnesium helps to lower inflammation, therefore, improving skin health, function and appearance,” she said. And since magnesium is more easily absorbed via the skin, a body spray like this makes sense.

$13.64 at Amazon

16. iS Clinical Pro Heal Serum

Acne scars can be tough to treat, which is why going big with an antioxidant-rich serum like this one is a dermatologist-recommended approach. “When it comes to treating post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation for acne, I like to use iS Clinical Pro Heal Serum when the scar is fresh,” Engleman said. It’s formulated with tons of good-for-skin ingredients like vitamin C, E and A, zinc sulfate and kojic acid.

$148 at Dermstore

Hugh Jackman has welcomed singer-songwriter John Legend to the People’s “Sexiest Man Alive” club in the best way possible: By negging Ryan Reynolds.

Jackman, who won the award in 2008, posted a video of him and Reynolds on Wednesday.

In the clip, Jackman and Reynolds are chatting when Jackman jokingly drops a copy of his “Sexiest Man” issue in front of Reynolds, who was given the title in 2010. 

“Have you seen it?” Jackman says, handing the magazine over. 

“I have an issue somewhere, I have a few of yours,” quips Reynolds in the video. “Usually I cut the eyes out or the mouth, but that’s just me, that’s how I roll.”

“The Greatest Showman” star captioned the hilarious video by writing: “Dear John. Massive congrats on joining this very very prestigious group. 99 percent of the time, PEOPLE Magazine get[s] it right. Such as Blake [Shelton], DJ [Dwayne Johnson], etc … But a word of caution. There is the 1 percent. Exhibit A. It’s important that you fall in with the right crowd. Enjoy your reign. Love Hugh.”

Legend’s recognition as 2019′s “Sexiest Man” was revealed Tuesday night during his show, “The Voice.”

Fellow “Voice” host Blake Shelton, who won the title in 2017, announced the news. Shelton went so far as to gift Legend a pair of jean cutoffs, bedazzled with the word “VEGOTSMA” on the butt.

“You already came into this show as an EGOT,” said Shelton, noting the “All of Me” singer’s roster of Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony Awards. “Then you won ‘The Voice’ so it became a VEGOT. Now you have a ‘VEGOTSMA.’ You’re the only one.”

Congrats, John! And never stop being you, Hugh.

On Thursday, the government announced that Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro will be the chief guest at India’s Republic Day parade next year.

Reports said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is currently in Brazil for the BRICS summit, invited Bolsonaro, who accepted “with pleasure”. The right-wing leader, who was sworn in as Brazil’s 38th President on 1 January 2019, will visit India in 2020 with a big business delegation. 

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

Each year, India invites the heads of other states as the chief guest for its Republic Day celebrations on 26 January. In the past, Nelson Mandela, Queen Elizabeth, John Major, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama and Shinzo Abe have been among the chief guests. But Modi’s invitation to Bolsonaro and his bonhomie with the Brazilian leader is a cause for worry in particular.

Bolsonaro’s politics — be his take on the Amazon fire, women’s rights or LGBTQ rights or democratic rights in general — are deeply problematic to say the least. 

When he was sworn in, HuffPost reporter Travis Waldron wrote in a long, deeply reported analysis piece that “Bolsonaro has modeled his ascent to power on the rise of Trump, whose own victory was built on years of democratic erosion”.

Waldron pointed out that, like other rightwing leaders, while Bolsonaro has claimed his rise to power was due to a “populist revolt”, his actual backers were the old financial elites.

Kavita Krishnan, secretary of the All India Progressive Women’s Association, told HuffPost India that Bolsonaro was a “political kindred spirit” to PM Modi.

″He has gone out of his way to call Bolsonaro who the world tries to distance themselves from and is critical of, Modi reaching out to him is a sign that Modi thinks he is in good company,” she said over the phone.

Bolsonaro’s relationship with the rest of the world has been ridden with controversies. While he is considered close to leaders such as Donald Trump (a fellow climate sceptic), like the US President, he has had open spats with other world leaders, especially those who criticise him. 

In August, when French President Emanuel Macron criticised Bolsonaro’s administration over the wildfires raging in the Amazon rainforest and asked that the issue be discussed at the G7 summit, the Brazilian President first hit back through tweets, lamenting the “the colonialist mindset that is unacceptable in the 21st century”. He also made sexist comments about the physical appearance of Macron’s wife Briggit, leading to a back-and-forth that would not give anyone confidence in the Latin American leader’s diplomatic skills. One of the lowlights? Bolsonaro’s vow to stop using Bic pens from France.

Bolsonaro also had a spat with Norway and Germany over preserving the Amazon rainforest, where deforestation has been surging.

Here are some of the biggest blots on Bolsonaro’s track record so far.

He fuelled the fire. 

While the Amazon fire was raging in August, Reuters reported that in 2019, Brazil reported the highest number of forest fires since 2010, an 83% increase over the same period of 2018.

After he took office, Bolsonaro ignored international worries about deforestation in the Amazon and said that he wanted to open up protected lands for development in order to spur economic growth. Farmers in Brazil set illegal fires to forests to create land for cattle and crops as the far-right leader cut back on government efforts to reduce deforestation. 

Christian Poirier, the program director of Amazon Watch, an environmental nonprofit, had said in a statement. “This devastation is directly related to President Bolsonaro’s anti-environmental rhetoric, which erroneously frames forest protections and human rights as impediments to Brazil’s economic growth. Farmers and ranchers understand the president’s message as a license to commit arson with wanton impunity, in order to aggressively expand their operations into the rainforest.”

Earlier this month, an indigenous warrior who protected the Amazon rain forest was shot dead by loggers. Sonia Guajajara, leader of Brazil’s pan-indigenous organization APIB, said that “the government was dismantling environmental and indigenous agencies, and leaving tribes to defend themselves from invasion of their lands”.

Not a fan of women 

When Brazilian football star Neymar was accused of sexual harassment, Bolsonaro sided with him, bluntly saying, “I believe him” even before the investigation into the allegations was complete.

HuffPost Brasil’s Marcella Fernandes reported that the president’s remarks “sent shockwaves across Brazil, a country where experts say reporting rates for sexual crimes are lower than they should be”.  

In 2014, Bolsonaro not only told Congresswoman Maria do Rosário that he would never rape her because she was not “worth it”, he also bragged about the incident on Twitter. Bolsonaro said about his own daughter, “I had four sons, but then I had a moment of weakness, and the fifth was a girl.”

Bolsonaro had also compared maternity leaves to “more labour rights”. “Because women get more labor rights than men, meaning they get maternity leave, the employer prefers to hire men … I would not employ [women equally]. But there are a lot of competent women out there,” he had said.  

‘Proud Homophobe’

The LGBTQ community in Brazil were scared when Bolsonaro was elected to power. Reuters had reported that while in 2011, he had said he would rather have his son “die in a car crash” than him be gay, in 2013  he called himself a “proud homophobe”.

While Brazil’s Sao Paolo prides itself for one of the largest yearly pride parades in the world, homosexual people are still afraid to be open about their sexuality. 

Recife-based small business owner Paula, who had requested Reuters to not use her surname, had said, “His victory is already encouraging and legitimizing countless acts of violence throughout the country… We are alarmed and afraid – not only of losing our legal rights, but of losing our freedom and our lives.”

Big fan of violence and war, not democracy 

Bolsonaro is also in favour of torture, violence and war. In August, Bolsonaro hailed a military official, convicted of torture, as a national hero. “I am in favour of torture, you know that,” Bolsonaro had said in 1999 in an interview.

In the same interview, he had said only a civil war could change Brazil, and not elections: “Elections won’t change anything in this country. It will only change on the day that we break out in civil war here and do the job that the military regime didn’t do: killing 30,000. If some innocent people die, that’s fine. In every war, innocent people die.”

In the same interview, he had said he would shut down Congress if he were President, saying, “Let’s go straight to the dictatorship.”

Many viewers found it hard to digest a Kardashian familyfood fight video posted to Instagram Wednesday.

In a clip from “Keeping Up With The Kardashians” shared by Khloe Kardashian, sisters Kourtney and Kim Kardashian engage in a food fight with mom Kris Jenner. Khloe tries not to participate.

The outdoor meal goes airborne as members of the clan throw pasta and salad at each other. The clip ends with Kim about to douse her mother with what appears to be iced tea.

Khloe expressed annoyance and disgust at the spectacle. “This is no way to live,” she said, prompting a response from her mother.

“No, this is no way to live,” Kris Jenner replied. “But if you can laugh at this and breathe, then I think you’re doing A-OK.”

Many viewers couldn’t laugh, though, and accused the reality TV family of being “insensitive” to starving people, especially at holiday time.

“So many people without having anything to eat and you play with food that way,” one wrote.

“All I can think about is how many hungry kids we have in this world and y’all throwing food around SMH,” another commenter said.

Negative comments continued to flood the section.

“Meanwhile people starve but ok,” another commented.

“Shame on all of you, people would give their right arm for that food!! Disgusting.”

Here’s a sampling:

Some members of the Kardashian family had a food fight in 2015 as well. That one involved guacamole.