 |
Tuesday,
September 10, 2002,
Chandigarh, India  
|
Disinvestment
debate Drawing the line Hate love story! |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
India’s privatisation problems
Dates to suit
‘Market orthodoxy’ vs pragmatism
Stress control reduces heart damage
Why women cradle babies in left arms
|
Disinvestment debate ON
Saturday the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment shelved the handing
over of two-profit-making oil PSUs—Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited — for three months. The decision has kicked off a fresh debate on the ongoing privatisation process. The debate should help clear doubts about a mid-course review of the disinvestment programme, as demanded by Defence Minister George Fernandes. This will also make the nation understand better the implications of a change in the policy if at all it is brought about. Mr Fernandes has a point when he says that the government should not wash its hands off HPCL and BPCL to create private monopolies. His viewpoint has evoked support from diverse quarters like the RSS and left political forces, though not unexpected. In fact, a single person has succeeded in creating a situation when the government seems to be seriously thinking on reversing its decision on economically viable PSUs. This is not an unwelcome development simply because the US-controlled agencies like the IMF and the World Bank insist that the government should concentrate on its primary responsibility — governance. The government, in their view, should have nothing to do with business, which should be left to those whose basic job it is. This is a simplistic statement. Governance also includes certain special responsibilities of the government towards the public which cannot be fulifilled unless it has the necessary means. This is more significant in a country like India where the majority still lives in the villages with a low purchasing power. Take the case of banks. If there had been no public sector banks, a major part of rural India would still be longing for this facility, which is not the situation today. And all private banks are not success stories. Depressing reports are being received about ICICI Bank, once known for its excellent performance. Using the banks’ example, one can blunt the argument against the profitability of the oil PSUs. Those who stand for their sell-off to the private sector say that these PSUs have been making profit simply because they have functioned in a monopoly situation. Now that the oil sector is open to private players, the profit-making PSUs may turn into loss-gathering ones. Surrendering before fighting a battle is not a good strategy. Moreover, few nationalised banks are running in loss after the challenge thrown up by private ones. Oil is a strategic weapon even though the much-quoted G.V. Ramakrishna Commission on Disinvestment did not put it in a strategic category. It can be used to paralyse not only industrial activity but also the daily routine of most citizens. This, however, does not mean that the privatisation process should come to a screeching halt.The government should, in any case, spare the undertakings which are not a burden on the national exchequer. This amendment in the policy must be introduced at least at this stage when it is difficult to comment conclusively on the merits of privatisation in India. The world is witness to disastrous consequences in many countries after the reckless implementation of the IMF/World Bank prescriptions. India should be wiser from their experiences. Two other points come to one’s mind immediately. One, the proceeds from the sale of loss-making PSUs should be utilised properly, with a major portion going to the social sectors as was decided earlier. Two, there should be total trasparency in disinvestment decisions so that private sector sharks are not able to gobble up even efficiently run PSUs to promote their business interests. |
|
Drawing the line Karnataka Chief Minister S.M.Krishna has every reason to be happy with the Cauvery River Authority’s directive on Sunday to release 0.8 tmcft (thousand million cubic feet) of water to Tamil Nadu “accounted on a weekly average basis for September and October”. The decision was taken at an emergency meeting by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in his capacity as the CRA Chairman. This directive supersedes the Supreme Court’s fiat to Karnataka last week to release 1.25 tmcft of water to Tamil Nadu everyday. Karnataka had problems in implementing the apex court’s ruling on grounds of poor monsoon and drought. It said the court order will not only affect the interests of the farmers in the Cauvery basin but also hit the supply of drinking water to Bangalore, Mysore, Mandya, Hassan and Tumkur because of the fast depletion of the water levels in the four Cauvery reservoirs. Mr Krishna prevailed upon Mr Vajpayee to convene an emergency meeting on Sunday itself (in view of the Prime Minister’s scheduled departure for the USA on Monday) and reduce the quantum of water to be released for Tamil Nadu. In its ruling, the Supreme Court clearly said that its order holds good until the CRA decides the quantum of water release at its next meeting. In a way, Mr Krishna has succeeded in convincing the CRA of his problems in implementing the Supreme Court’s ruling. Notwithstanding Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa’s absence at the meeting (she cited “short notice” as the reason and instead deputed the state’s Finance Minister to represent her), Mr Krishna managed to fulfil the requirement of quorum by ensuring the participation of two other Chief Ministers of riparian states — Mr A.K.Antony (Kerala) and Mr N.Rangaswamy (Pondicherry). However, Tamil Nadu has recorded its protest and said that it will challenge the CRA’s decision before the Supreme Court. On the other hand, Karnataka’s farmers in Mandya district are not prepared to endorse even the CRA’s decision, let alone the court ruling. They say they will not allow water release. There seems to be no end to the dispute with both Mr Krishna and Ms Jayalalithaa having indulged in mutual recrimination. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister’s tough stand on the Veerappan issue has further vitiated the atmosphere. She is not prepared to endorse the negotiation route to secure the safe release of the JD(U) leader and former Karnataka Minister, Mr H. Nagappa, who was taken hostage by Veerappan on August 25. Clearly, this kind of recrimination has to stop and one has to draw the line somewhere. Inter-state river water disputes can best be resolved if the upper riparian states show magnanimity and statesmanship and come to the rescue of lower riparian states. Nearer home, Punjab and Haryana are embroiled in the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal issue. There is a general impression that political parties take diametrically opposite views when in and out of power. This is as true in Haryana as it is in the case of Tamil Nadu. One way of resolving the inter-state river water disputes in an honourable way is to nationalise the river waters. Water should be treated as a national asset with a Central authority to examine water sharing between riparian and non-riparian states. In fact, on the SYL issue, the Supreme Court has ruled that if the Punjab government fails to complete the SYL canal in time, the Centre will have to do the job. Since Punjab apparently has no plan to carry out the construction work on the ground that it has no surplus water to spare, a confrontation is building up. In view of the CRA’s experience, doubts are bound to be raised on the efficacy of a Central authority for water sharing. However, given the big-brotherly attitude of the upper riparian states, the Centre will have to act as the final arbiter as no other viable alternative seems to be in sight. |
|
Hate love story! Does the lady protest too much? For nearly a week now actress Manisha Koirala has been knocking on one door after another to seek deletion of some scenes from her new movie, “Ek Chhoti Si Love Story”. According to the Bollywood actresss, director Shashilal Nair had used her body double to film “vulgar and obscene” intimate scenes. Nair, in defence, insists that Manisha had signed a contract with him allowing the use of a body double and she had okayed the film in its present form after seeing it not once but twice. Moreover, Nair says the film has been cleared by the Censor Certification Board, which is responsible for screening all movies, especially with regard to sex and violence. Without going into the nitty- gritty of the contract that Manisha had signed with Nair, it can be said as a matter of principle that each and every woman, no matter what her profession or avocation, has the right to object and seek appropriate redressal if she thinks that her honour and dignity have been compromised. She is also free to change her mind at any stage and whenever she does so, she has to be obliged. Manisha’s stand on the issue is, therefore, justified and Nair should have acted promptly and gentlemanly and deleted the scenes without getting into an unseemly controversy. That he did not, speaks of his intent and purpose in continuing with the mud- slinging to benefit his film commercially. While accepting the basic right of a woman over her body and its depiction, it has to be also said that Manisha has not conducted herself in a way that makes for a principled fight. She approached the courts and the screening of the film was stopped by an order. She also went for a meeting with the officials of the National Commission for Women, though she did not turn up for the second round. However, despite the sympathetic hearing and action that she got at these appropriate fora , Manisha thought it fit to seek the intervention of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray. Subsequently, the sainiks took to the streets and indulged in vandalism. By this single unfortunate act, Manisha lost the sympathy of all right- thinking people and turned a real issue into a public fracas. The doubts on her real intention began to surface and the focus shifted to the speculation that Manisha had donned the make-up to enact the wronged- woman role in order to further the commercial interests of Nair’s film. It is a known fact that both Manisha and Nair desperately need a hit. The actress specially has been down in the dumps for the last couple of years and Nair’s controversial subject and its filming does provide a ray of hope to her virtually non-existent career. It is also intriguing that on as many as three occasions in the past, controversy has erupted every time a Manisha film was ready for release. Once a story was flashed that she had been killed. At another time that she had been abducted. She had also accused her first director of trying to seduce her. Given her track record, her current impassioned hysterics appear to be hollow attempts at histrionics on a very sensitive gender issue. One hopes that Manisha’s spirited effort gathers informed audiences and causes a constructive debate and does not turn out, for want of personal credentials, to be a flop show like her film. |
India’s privatisation problems Mr George Fernandes, the Defence Minister and the convener of the ruling coalition, has thrown a spanner in the way of Mr Arun Shourie riding the high horse in the Disinvestment Ministry. Disinvestment blues to emerge in the mid-term for the NDA government is very disconcerting for the so-called economic reformers inside and outside the government. The frantic search by Mr Arun Shourie for “strategic partners” with the help “global advisers” to hand over the management control of large PSUs to big Indian and multinational corporations was bound to create problems. This was conceived as the first step for the eventual transfer of ownership of PSUs to private hands with moderate investment and the takeover of their huge assets. This suits the corporates far more than disinvestment of government equity in driplets at competitive market prices. The strengthening of the management and operating efficiency of PSUs too then loses its appeal, even relevance, for official policy on disinvestments of PSUs which are driven into sickness for want of investment for renovation to become attractive pickings for selected Indian and foreign corporations on payment of negotiated prices in instalments. The original idea of disinvestment to raise revenues for the government for spending on alternative priority areas, such as education, health, roads and irrigation has also been shelved. After the winding up of the Disinvestment Commission, which tended to give some importance to enhancing the market value of PSUs before their privatisation and collect larger revenue for the exchequer, the disinvestment policy has now indeed developed novel features and wider dimensions. The entire scheme of disinvestment-privatisation as implemented by Mr Shourie is inspired by ideological preferences and not cost or efficiency criteria. There was, therefore, bound to be stronger political-ideological opposition to the disinvestment policy of the NDA government sooner than later. The working people and their trade unions have opposed PSU disinvestment sharply and unreservedly. So have the Left parties. But the Congress party, which initiated the disinvestment process, too has now developed reservations in the case of profit-making PSUs. Some of the partners of ruling coalition and elements close to the BJP have misgivings about the working of the Department of Disinvestment. There are also allegations of corruption in disinvestment deals with foreign and Indian big business interests. The case for public investment in general and development of large industrial, commercial and financial infrastructure in the public sector in particular for economic growth process is, however, sound. Its fundamental basis is of social equity and sustainability at the present level and stage of India’s social, economic and political development. The returns from public investment in some industrial and commercial undertakings may not have been so far adequate. But this can be no alibi for absolving the Indian State of the responsibility to mobilise necessary resources — material, human and financial — for economic growth on the basis of the right order of economic and social priorities. Even sensible Indian private business interests clamour from time to time for a step-up of public investment in PSUs for providing a reliable infrastructure to enable them to function and face foreign competition in domestic and global markets. The talk of loss-making and profit-yielding PSUs is gibberish. It is a simplistic, indeed misleading and mischievous, view to measure the efficiency of PSUs in the narrow term of commercial profitability. The fact that must be reckoned with is that PSUs should operate in such a way as to augment public savings. Many well-managed PSUs do make profits. But they are also required to put up with planned losses in the larger public interest, economic as well as political. In order to provide essential goods and services to the mass of the people, for instance, PSUs are often called upon to suffer losses which private business is unable and unwilling to accept. The support and protection of the State too was necessary for the development of private industry, after India gained political independence from colonial rule. PSUs and public financial institutions have provided this support and protection to the private business enterprise in India to develop. The PSUs have provided essential inputs on a large-scale at below the cost of production to private industry. It is indeed not fortuitous that PSUs and private corporates as well as small scale industry grew in tandem during the era of planned economic development. This laid the foundation for strong and stable industrialisation. The disinvestment and privatisation of PSUs can only undermine this foundation. This has, in fact already resulted in serious setbacks to machine-making and manufacturing industry as well as the research and development effort for industrial development on a sound, steady and sustainable basis. What is happening is that while public investment and management and technological enterprise is being strangled, private big business is going away from productive enterprise into trading in imported goods and services, speculation in stocks and shares and junior partnership with multinational corporations. The claim of the economic reformer that once public investment, especially in industry, is withdrawn and industrial development is left to private enterprise, the resource constraint on the government for investment in social sectors would be removed. This is a false claim. It was also argued by them that disinvestment would benefit the mass of the people and make privatisation and market-driven growth of Indian industry acceptable and popular. This has not actually happened. The disinvestment and privatisation drive has certainly and often wantonly allowed diversion of public funds to selected private business corporations to extract high profits from meagre investment in the takeover of PSUs. The privatisation of VNSL to the Tata House is a case in point. The funds raised by PSU disinvestment have been absorbed into the general budgets mainly of the central and partly also of the state governments which have recycled these funds back to the private corporations through financial institutions and cuts in tax demand on large incomes and wealth. No part of the revenue raised by PSU disinvestments or saved by the government by scaling down public investment in industrial growth has gone to the development of the social sector. The privatisation, side by side, of trade in public goods, among them electricity and drinking water as well as commercialisation of education, health services, public transport and communications has far-reaching implications, not only economic and social but also political. Essential goods and services under this policy dispensation are reserved for only those who can afford to pay for them. This has barred the access to these goods and services for the mass of the people without adequate incomes and purchasing power. It is not at all surprising or fortuitous that rural electrification, rural telephony and even drinking water schemes have been given low priority in the development of urban and rural infrastructure as compelling obligations of the public authority. But generous concessions and special fiscal steps have been taken for the satisfaction of the consumerist urges of the upper and middle classes, among them entertainment, leisure, travel and fashion. The move to arrange the return to India of the Royal Dutch Shell, one of the notorious seven partners in the international oil cartel, which was expelled, along with two other international oil companies, from India three decades ago for not processing Indian crude oil in their refineries has now brought matters to head on for the contentious issue of the disinvestment of PSUs. Mr Fernandes deserves compliments for bringing up for review not only the sale of two public sector refineries and their marketing networks but also the entire disinvestment programme and the manner in which it is being implemened at a feverish, break-neck hurry by Mr Arun Shourie. A mid-term review of policies and performance for the incumbent political authority in a democratic set-up is always ticklish and even painful. The minority Congress government, which initiated in 1991 the privatisation-globalisation process in India, found itself vulnerable in the mid-term of its tenure. The then Prime Minister, the wily Mr Narasimha Rao, simply halted the implementation of the market-friendly economic reforms for the time being and went back to populist gestures in order to be able to improve the poor electoral prospects of his party. He failed to achieve the desired objective. The option to halt the market-friendly policy and return to popularism is, however, too risky for Mr AB Vajpayee to even contemplate. Mr Vajpayee has gone too far in committing himself, in the domestic arena as well as globally, to the privatisation-globalisation policy. He can only try to stall to gain time with small adjustments in the implementation of the policy, which are not likely to win for him popular acceptance. The awareness of the implications and consequences of the so-called economic reforms has become widespread and strong in India. Economic reforms have indeed become the most contentious issue for political and electoral reasons. This contention is likely to exercise dominant influence over political alignments and re-alignments before the general election and the response of the electorate. |
Dates to suit On the wrong side of 70, my recluse father, living all by himself, despite having six of us to look after him, does not need any heart-warming vibes in the form of well-meaning cards or overtures of care and concern which generally old people seek and deserve. On the contrary, call it his sprightliness or cynicism, he springs surprises on us. Recently, he surprised us with his resurrection from amnesia, as old as half a century, or maybe even more, on certain very personal issues. All of a sudden, a flash came to his mind and he was there telling us exact details of happenings that took place 60 or 70 years ago. And about which all of us in the family had been blissfully oblivious. We had never known the date of the marriage of our parents. All that we knew from senior family members’ accounts was that they got married during summer time. And that the barat was entertained for as long as three days. And also that there was a special bogey arranged at the Panipat railway junction for the baratis through a contractor friend of my grandfather who had ‘right’ connections during those British times. Mother remembered nothing about her marriage except that my grandfather (and her father-in-law) encountered her only, as a growing up girl in her village, while asking the way to her house, pronouncing her father's name. Laughing heartily she told us, “…I only pointed with my raised finger— THERE!” On May 14 this year the telephone bell rang in early morning hours at my residence in New Delhi. My father was on the line. I got worried. Just shaken out of slumber, I tried to gather my nerves as to what would Bauji tell me. “Listen, Pappu (my nick name)! Today is our marriage anniversary", he declared curtly with (re?) assurance of a gritty elephantine memory having been bestowed upon him just then only. “How come, Bauji, you never told us this. Not even Kamla (my eldest sister), who is around 55, remembers this having had ever been told to her!” I made a polite rejoinder. Bauji became serious and, in an apparently angry tone, snubbed me, “Now, that is the problem with you. Do you think I am a fool? I had been keeping vigil all through the night and made calculations. May 14, i.e. today. It is our marriage anniversary. And that’s what it is.” He gave the verdict a la Amitabh Bachchan in "Mohabbaten": “Keh diya so keh diya!” We had no option but to congratulate him on “this happy occasion” and he accepted it, asking if we were planning to visit him that day. The early morning call was once again received on July 31 and this time father informed us about his date of birth. All that we had known till then was that Bauji was born on the fifth day of the ascending month of Sawan as per the lunar calendar. “But, Bauji, the dates of the lunar calendar are always not in synchronization or compatibility with the solar calendar. Sometimes the difference is of weeks altogether,” I protested. “But I have decided now to resolve this solar-lunar tangle and fixed my date of birth as the 31st of July. Does it suit you?” he declared and asked our convenience. We wished Bauji a happy birthday one by one and promised him a gift too when we would visit him in the village. I wonder why father is doing all this! Is it that he is trying to catch up with the times or that, having lived for 17 long years of separation since my mother died, he wants our company once again to relive the happy family times? His being forgetful of his marriage anniversary and date of birth all these years might not have been that blissful, but his coming alive to the happy events of his life now worries us. |
‘Market orthodoxy’ vs pragmatism Whatever may be the immediate outcome of the Cabinet discussion on disinvestment, the controversy is not going to die down that smoothly. The debate on PSU sellout has always been bitter but the present challenge differs qualitatively from the earlier ones. So far the opponents were drawn mainly from the Left and their TUs and RSS outfits like the Swadeshi Jagran Manch and the BMS. A look at the new challengers will show that ideology has been replaced by sheer pragmatic considerations. Barring George Fernandes, who was once a crusader against foreign capital, none among the new critics of the MOD’s PSU sales can be described as socialist or Nehruvian. Their objections are based on their own experiences. Neither Ram Naik nor Pramod Mahajan is against disinvestment per se. Their contention is that well managed profit-making public sector units need not be got rid of for a song, especially if it meant only one monopoly replacing the other. True, the new opponents of the MOD’s privatisation zeal may have their own vested interests — loss of fiefdom — as the crusader minister often alleges in private. But they too have their statistics to prove that the anticipated sales proceeds is a pittance, and by retaining the profitable PSUs the government will only gain in the long run. The ministers even question the claim that the privatisation will lead to better restructuring of the units and improved management. The neo-critics are against privatisation for the sake of privatisation. Instead, they want each case to be decided on merit. The RBI’s latest annual report has become the Gita for the disinvestment pragmatists. Quoting the report published last week, they assert that there is no evidence to prove that transfer of ownership from public to private has led to better efficiency. “On the other hand, there is some evidence suggesting that efficient public ownership in some selected sectors could bring with it external economies of scale and scope which provide a supportive environment for private enterprise, especially when projects are lumpy, involve long gestation lags and where the critical minimum of infrastructure has to be created,” it says. The RBI report, relevant excerpts from which are being widely circulated, has also strengthened the critics’ demand for a fresh look at the disinvestment strategy. It even endorses the distinction between strategic and non-strategic areas. The report says: “The real challenge, however, lies not merely in closing down non-viable public sector enterprises but in restructuring of potentially viable PSEs and significantly scaling down of government equity in all non-strategic areas.” The MOD, whose is increasingly getting isolated outside the chamber premises, refuses to recognise any such distinction. Many such quotes and statistics are currently in circulation, some through couriers. One of them borrows a term from the controversial book by Joseph Stiglitz, a former member of the US President’s advisory council and a World Bank man. Stiglitz, has coined the term market fundamentalism to decry those arrogantly follow the globalisation panacea. In India, they see similar fundamentalism or orthodoxy in dealing with PSU disinvestment. A “letter” attributed to the RSS parivar — also in circulation — questions the very model followed in India for the disinvestment. It warns that the strategic sales of PSUs to a favoured party did not bring benefit to the country. Even if the party buyer gave a little higher price it was nothing but a premium for the private monopoly. It cites the case of the South Africa, Malaysia, Spain, China, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands where PSU sales were done through the public offering route. In France, France Telecom, French banks, Air France, the power, oil and communication sectors were all disinvested not through any favoured partner. Public issue was the route they too had adopted. As against this, in Russia ‘strategic partners’ — some with foreign links — sprung up to grab its large industrial network at throwaway prices. In India, “strategic sale” was the device for PSU sellout invented by the disinvestment commission during the heady days of reform. Political implications of the new outcry for a “mid-term” review of the disinvestment policy are obvious. With elections in nine states — two are already in the process — due in about six months and the Lok Sabha poll not far off, emphasis is on conserving one’s own constituency. When the ruling party’s stock dips as has been indicated by the assembly polls, urge for personal security will be greater among the politicians. Normally, unpleasant tasks are left to the Rajya Sabha members. And with all his upright image, Manmohan Singh had to pay a heavy price in Delhi elections. The Disinvestment Minister’s isolation looks near total. A dozen ministers, including such stalwarts as George Fernandes, Ram Naik, Jaswant Singh and Murli Manohar Joshi, have turned against the MOD whose abrasive style has only added to the prevailing bitterness. They all seek an honest review of the present model. Ram Naik derides the MOD by seeking a “50 per cent share” in an award he got for disinvestment. Naik insists that due to the strategic importance, all PSU oil companies should remain in government hands. He seeks merger of HPCL and BPCL and permission for the oil PSUs to bid for their sister companies. The MOD is bent on preventing this. Pramod Mahajan, the most potentially prominent BJP minister, decries the creation of “private monopoly” and bluntly questions the MOD’s very role. He wanted the PSU sales, if necessary, to be initiated by the parent ministry, not the MOD. As a counter to the MOD move, Mahajan advocates merger of the MTNL and BSNL, not their sellout. Even juniors like Shahnavas Hussain have objected to the MOD’s move for the privatisation of Indian Airlines and Air India. Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa has said there will be no sale of NFL. Balasaheb Vikhe Patil has come out against ‘strategic buyer’ and wants it to be through public issue of shares. The latest on the scene is Uma Bharati. Samata leaders have specially requested Fernandes to make it an image building exercise. It is going to be a tough task to checkmate Fernandes once he goes ahead with the idea. A fight-for-justice may help it encounter Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar. The Congress is waiting in wings to exploit the growing public resentment on such issues. So far, the party has not taken a clear position. It is bound to use the issue in case it captures the public imagination. Things can really go bad if some one alleges scam in one of the strategic sales. The RSS has already set a time table for its outfits for a public campaign on what it calls illconceived disinvestment. The SJM, which was made to lay low for some time, has been told to launch fresh stir from September 20 to October 6. The BMS and its sister organisation Bharatiya Kisan Mazdur Sangh will agitate in October-November on the issue of WTO. All such public campaigns will make the government’s position more untenable. If the economic pragmatists win the war, that will tend to justify the privatisation critics’ claims of “public property loot.” If the MOD line prevails, which is not likely, it will give enough grit to the Opposition during the coming elections. |
|
Stress control reduces heart damage Believing that you have control over a stressful situation may make it less damaging to your heart and circulatory system, according to a new study published in the journal ‘Psychophysiology’. “Investigators have proposed that having control of life events can reduce an individual’s cardiovascular disease risk”, said lead author Suzanne E Weinstein of Pennsylvania State University. Previous research, she noted, suggests that more exaggerated cardiovascular responses to stressful events may help forge the link between low control and high risk by damaging arterial walls and encouraging atherosclerosis. To test the connection between control and the magnitude of cardiovascular response, Weinstein and her colleagues asked 32 undergraduate students to play a video game of ‘catch’. As the students played, they received short blasts of a mildly annoying noise through headphones. About half the players were told that better performance on the game would reduce the number of noises, and the remaining players were told that the blasts were random. After the test, Weinstein found that those students who were led to believe that they could reduce the number of annoying sounds by making more catches experienced smaller increases in systolic blood pressure and total peripheral resistance to blood flow than those who believed they could not control the noise. Both measures indicate that the students who were supposedly “in control” experienced less stress on their hearts and circulatory systems than did their presumably “out-of-control” counterparts, even though they were performing an identical task. Although the findings may provide valuable insight into the relationship between control and cardiovascular response, Weinstein cautions that “they do not directly address the relationship between control and cardiovascular disease nor do they indicate that more control — either real or perceived — would produce similar effects in all situations. “This experiment tested the effects of short-term control during a four-minute game; long-term control may not have the same buffering effect on cardiovascular responses”, the researchers concluded.
ANI |
Why women cradle babies in left arms Psychologists at the University of Sussex have come up with an explanation for why most mothers instinctively cradle their babies in their left arms. Research shows that if a woman is given a baby or a doll to hold she is twice as likely to hold it on her left, rather than her right hand side. Brenda Todd and Victoria Bourne, psychologists, believe the reason is that the right side of the female brain is specialised for interpreting faces and emotions. They tested 32 right handed volunteers, of whom 12 were male, on their cradling bias. The volunteers also took a test to determine which side of the brain they used for face processing. The researchers found that females who cradled on the left showed signs that the right side of their brain controlled the way they processed information about faces. No such relationship was found for males. This brain organisation in females means that information in the left of their visual field, such as an infant cradled on the left, will go to the brain’s right hemisphere. Dr Todd was quoted by BBC as saying, “Previous explanations on the left cradling bias have included the infant’s own head posture, or the tranquilising effect of the mother’s heart beat.
ANI Veg food good for growing kids The notion that non-vegetarian food is better than vegetarian food for growing children does not hold any truth if a new US study, published in a recent issue of the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, is to be believed. According to researchers from the University of Minnesota, vegetarian diets can be quite healthy as long as parents help monitor the diets so the kids get the nutrients they need. “Parents are a bit too concerned about their teen’s vegetarianism. If the adults could embrace it a bit and say, `We’ll have vegetarian meals twice a week and you can help me cook,’ it might take some of the perceived rebellion out of it and be healthier for the whole family,” study author Cheryl Perry, a professor of epidemiology at the university, was quoted as saying by HealthScout. According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet can be healthy for a child of any age, including infants. “A well-managed vegetarian diet can absolutely meet the needs of growing children, including teenagers. The issue is making sure the child is getting all the nutrients they need from non-meat sources. It all comes down to eating a variety of allowed foods, and making sure you get all the nutrients for growth,” says Sheah Rarback, an American Dietetic Association spokeswoman. ANI |
Know that death is real, and everything else that appeareth is unreal. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib *** But Jesus said unto him follow me, and let the dead bury their dead. — The Bible, Mathew; Luke
*** Look on death as going home. — Chuang Tzu
*** Great indeed is death! To the noble-hearted it brings rest; To the baser sort it brings subjection. — Lieh Tzu. I
*** If the people were always in awe of death, and I could always seize those who do wrong, and put them to death, who would dare to do wrong. — Tao Te Ching
*** The dead shall rise up, life shall come back to the bodies and they shall keep the breath. — Fragments Westergaard
*** To everyone comes the unseen, deceiving Astivihad (death), who accepts neither compliments, nor bribe, who is no respecter of persons, and ruthlessly makes men perish. — Aogemadaecha
*** One who identifies himself with his soul regards bodily transmigration of his soul at death fearlessly like changing one cloth for another. — Samadhi Shataka
*** Charity is a stately plant, its very rare flower is gratitude. — German proverb
*** Charity looks at the need and not at the cause. — German proverb
*** In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, but in everything charity. — German proverb
*** The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it is found in the way of righteousness. — The
Bible |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 122 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
