stress is a state of arousal with which the body
responds to everyday challenges of life
S.M.Kumar
One may be prone to exclaim : ‘Not me, surely!
It cannot happen to me". But the
bravado could be short-lived.
An alarming number of people are falling a prey to
that killer disease – STRESS.
They could be under any age group. But the ones prone to it easily
fall under the
age group of 50 to 60. Marital discords, separations, divorce,
financial worries,
unemployment, approaching retirement, social frictions, failure
to realise
ambitions in life – no matter how incompatible with one’s
capabilities and
competence - future of children, greed, envy, heartburn on seeing
all the wrong
people climbing up to positions of influence because of extraneous
considerations
– one could go on enumerating the factors causing stress
in life. Heart attacks,
nervous breakdowns, alcoholism, migraine, backache, indigestion,
allergies,
fatigue, depression, weight gain, insomnia and even the common
cold are the
results of stress.
What is it?
Stress is an internal reaction in a given situation.
Simply put, stress is a state of
arousal with which the body responds to everyday challenges of
life. Whether it is
meeting deadlines, catching the bus, getting ready in the morning
to reach office
before one’s absence is noticed by the boss, making preparations
or attending
interviews, worrying about one’s promotion – both overdue
or not yet due.
Non-recognition of merit and hard work in places of work also
causes tension
leading to stress and change in attitudes. Unless a workaholic
under all
circumstances – a very rare attribute in an individual –
he is bound to develop a
negative outlook on everything that matters to him. When examined
in relation to
the workplace stress often appears as anxiety or tension in the
demands of job.
The impact of stress is seen in many ways. Besides affecting
the individual’s
physical health, it causes a decline in his productivity. There
is a gradual loss in
job satisfaction, affecting his personal life in the long run.
Several factors are responsible for stress. The need
to work quickly and coping
with too much work is one of the main reasons. The other causes
may be unclear
roles in the place of work, value objectives role conflicts,
job dissatisfaction,
responsibility and job obsolescence.
The common symptoms of stress are numerous. Development
of an indifferent or
negative attitude is the first manifestation. Anyone suffering
from stress may feel
emotionally exhausted, always complaining of fatigue. Because
of a change in
self-image, he may feel ineffective or helpless. He is prone
to become increasingly
inflexible and intolerant. Such a person relies more on rules
and less on personal
decision making.
Stress Management
Work dominates every individual’s life. Most people
have to keep a gruelling time
schedule at their work places. Otherwise their jobs would be
at stake. In their
sub-conscious such persons are prone to be always tense. Adding
the time spent
in travelling to and from the workplace everyday can also lead
to stress.
Over and above the scenario at workplace, is the home
front. For the married
people, balancing the time spent in office with the time spent
at home is a critical
factor.
The only way to reduce stress in life is planning.
By planning one’s work one can
gradually feel less stressed. There are numerous ways one can
organize one’s
work and time schedules to avoid chaos and confusion. Some general
ways to
cope with stress are physical exercises, longwalks and cultivation
of hobbies.
Gainful utilization of time through hobbies like reading, creative
writing, travel,
trekking, playing and indulging in recreational or educational
activities also help in
reducing tensions in life. Harbouring ill-will, bias and prejudices
are negative
factors. They never allow peace of mind. Real or imagined injustices
also
perpetuate acrimony, giving rise to hypertension and its consequential
disabilities
for health. Arrogance and dishonesty also give rise to stress
in the long run.
Arrogance of power and wealth eventually reflects only inferiority
complex. A
dishonest person suffers from guilt complex and is always restless.
In the short
run his gains may be enormous but all the time he is bound to
be tense thinking
of the consequences of his abuse of power.
Stress cannot altogether be wished away. No matter
what the circumstances,
stress is bound to be in one’s sub-consciousness in varying
degrees. But it can
certainly be lessened with some effort. Develop a positive and
optimistic attitude
to life and stress will largely go away.( keralamonitor.com)
U.S. Attack on War Crimes Court Rejected
at U.N.
(New York, July 3, 2002) - U.S. attacks on the new
war crimes court were
rejected again today at the United Nations, but the principle
of
universal justice is still under serious threat from Washington,
Human
Rights Watch said today.
The U.N. Security Council rejected a U.S. proposal
that would have
exempted peacekeepers from the authority of the International
Criminal
Court. Council members agreed to extend the authorization for
Bosnia
peacekeeping by July 15.
"This court was founded on the principle of universal
justice, and that
principle is under attack from ideologues in the Bush administration,"
said Richard Dicker, director of the international justice program
at
Human Rights Watch. "The Security Council was right to rebuff
those
attacks. We hope that they hold firm in the days to come."
The US proposal would have exempted from the court's
jurisdiction, for
an initial period of one year, officials involved in peacekeeping
from
governments that have not ratified the court's treaty. Even more
important, the exemption would remain in effect indefinitely
until the
Security Council votes to lift it, meaning that any single permanent
member of the Security Council could use its veto to block prosecution
forever.
The exemption would be valid even if the peacekeepers
were responsible
for crimes committed in a country that has ratified the treaty.
Under Article 16 of the treaty establishing the International
Criminal
Court, the Security Council may request the court to suspend
any
"investigation or prosecution" for a one-year renewable
period. But that
provision requires the positive vote of the Security Council
each year,
meaning that any of the five permanent members could veto a continued
deferral, and allow the court to prosecute.
The U.S. proposal, by contrast, would keep the suspension
in place
permanently until a positive vote of the Security Council decided
otherwise. That would allow Washington to permanently block ICC
investigation of anyone involved in operations sponsored or authorized
by the U.N.
The U.S. proposal would also weaken Article 27 of the
treaty, which
establishes the "irrelevance of official capacity."
This provision
allows someone like Slobodan Milosevic, former President of Yugoslavia,
to be prosecuted even though he might claim head-of-state immunity
under
national or international law. The U.S. proposal would send the
disturbing signal that certain persons, based on their official
capacity
as peacekeepers, could be above the law.
The U.S. proposal would also alter the jurisdiction
of the court: under
the ICC treaty, if genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity
are
committed on the territory of a State Party, the court would
have
jurisdiction over the accused regardless of his or her nationality,
and
every State Party would have an obligation to surrender an accused
to
the ICC. In creating an exemption for peacekeepers, the U.S.
proposal
would alter those fundamental obligations.
"The treaty's drafters resisted years of U.S.
pressure to insist that no
single government could manipulate the court's docket,"
said Dicker. "If
countries capitulate to U.S. pressure now and hand decisions
on
peacekeeper prosecutions to each single permanent member of the
Security
Council, the council breaches that important principle."
Dicker said the use of the Security Council to rewrite
a multilateral
treaty set a dangerous precedent far beyond the harm it may do
to the
ICC. The ICC treaty says that seven-eighths of all the State
Parties
have to vote for any amendment to the treaty. The United States
is now
trying to change the treaty using its muscle at the U.N. Security
Council.
In May, the Bush administration repudiated the U.S.
signature on the ICC
treaty. In addition to its campaign at the Security Council to
exempt
peacekeepers from the court's jurisdiction, Washington has been
working
to undermine the Court's jurisdiction over U.S. troops stationed
abroad
on the territory of governments that have ratified the court's
treaty.
Human Rights Watch has hailed the new court as the
most important new
human rights institution in fifty years. The treaty establishing
the
court took effect on July 1, 2002. The ICC Statute has been signed
by
139 countries and ratified by 76 countries.
At stake, Human Rights Watch said, is both the court's
independence and
its ability to apply the rule of law without distinction on the
territory of ratifying governments.
"It is sad that the historic achievement of creating
the Court is being
threatened by the actions of one government," said Dicker.
"Rather than
focusing on the goals of the court - to prosecute future Pol
Pots or
Saddam Husseins - the U.S. government has fixated on guaranteeing
itself
an ironclad exemption from the Court's jurisdiction. The U.S.
attempted
to achieve that result when the ICC treaty was drafted in 1998,
and
failed. It must not be permitted to do so now."
Spain: Immigration Laws Applied Unfairly
(New York, July 5, 2002) The Spanish government has
failed to ensure the
uniform and coherent implementation of its immigration law, resulting
in
arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of migrants, Human Rights
Watch
said in a new report released today.
The Human Rights Watch report, "Discretion Without
Bounds: The Arbitrary
Implementation of Spanish Immigration Law," criticizes the
Spanish
authorities' uncoordinated and ad hoc application of Spanish
Law 8/2000.
The report criticizes the arbitrary treatment of migrants and
asylum
seekers in Spain-in airports, in Madrid, along the Andalucian
coast, in
the two Spanish cities in North Africa (Ceuta and Melilla), and
in the
Canary Islands.
At their meeting in Seville on June 21-22, European
Union heads of state
discussed further measures to control immigration.
"We are seriously concerned that the E.U.'s measures
will only worsen
the kinds of treatment we have documented in Spain," said
Elizabeth
Andersen, executive director of the Europe and Central Asia division
of
Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch researchers found that in Spain
the treatment of
migrants and asylum seekers is primarily dependent on their point
of
entry into the country, regardless of the fact that Spain's immigration
and asylum laws should be applied uniformly throughout the country.
Researchers found that in the case of certain migrant
groups,
particularly Algerians, the Spanish authorities use informal
procedures
to determine their country of origin, sometimes resulting in
unreliable
and arbitrary decisions. Human Rights Watch also documented disturbing
violations of migrants' and asylum seekers' procedural rights,
particularly their rights to information in a language they understand,
meaningful legal and translation services, and an opportunity
to appeal.
Human Rights Watch is concerned that the Spanish government
has recently
focused its efforts on immigration control and speeding the process
for
migrants' expulsion and deportation, rather than on the serious
human
rights abuses Human Rights Watch and other groups have identified.
Human
Rights Watch calls on the Spanish government to:
* take prompt measures to address the deficiencies
of coordination
among central, regional, and local authorities in order to ensure
the
fair and consistent interpretation of the rights of migrants
under Law
8/2000 and its regulation;
* ensure that the foreigner's law is applied in a nondiscriminatory
manner, including the creation of clear guidelines for identification
procedures;
* provide all arriving migrants and asylum seekers
with information
pamphlets on the Spanish immigration procedure and their rights
under
Spanish, regional, and international law in a language they understand;
* provide training on immigration and asylum law for
lawyers
representing migrants and ensure that migrants have a meaningful
opportunity to seek legal assistance and to secure adequate legal
representation for all processes governing their rights and status;
and
* ensure that every migrant subject to a return procedure
in Spain
receives a full and fair individual determination with respect
to
repatriation, deportation, or expulsion.
Human Rights Watch's investigation, conducted at the
end of 2001,
included in-depth interviews with a wide range of government
officials
and nongovernmental specialists and observers as well as migrants
across
Spain
Pakistan: Tribal councils must
stop taking law into their own hands
5 July 2002
London; The Pakistani authorities must act to ensure
that tribal councils
cease to arrogate unlawful powers to themselves, Amnesty
International said today in a letter to the Chief Justice of
Pakistan asking him to ensure that justice is done for a young
woman sentenced to rape by a tribal council.
An 18-year-old woman from Meerwala in Punjab province,
was sentenced to being raped in 'punishment' for her 12-year-old
brother's alleged 'illicit affair' with a girl from a tribe
considered 'higher' than his, the Mastoi tribe. There are
unconfirmed reports that the boy was allegedly sodomized to
punish him for his 'offence' immediately after he was found
walking in the company of the Mastoi girl.
Members of the Mastoi tribe and the tribal council
reportedly threatened that all the women of the accused boy's
family would be abducted and raped if the tribal council's
verdict was not accepted and the 18-year-old sister of the
accused boy refused to accept her 'punishment'. The 'trial' took
place in the presence of several hundred local residents none
of
whom took any action to prevent the rape.
"Given the wide local participation, it must be
assumed
that local police was aware of the event as it unfolded, if not
directly present during the incident," Amnesty International
said.
After the 'judgment', the gang-rape was carried out
by
four men, including one member of the tribal council in an
adjacent hut while members of the Mastoi tribe reportedly stood
outside and cheered. After the rape the woman was driven naked
through the streets of her village before hundreds of onlookers.
Relatives of the girl were too frightened of retribution by the
Mastoi tribe to approach police.
Local police only accepted a complaint by the woman's
father seven days after the offence, when a delegation of lawyers
met local police authorities and insisted on the registration
of
the complaint. As the perpetrators had fled, police arrested
eight of their relatives to put pressure on the accused to
surrender. On 2 July 2002 police arrested eight people, including
members of the tribal council who had taken part in the 'trial'
on charges of abetment of rape.
Amnesty International welcomed the Supreme Court's
interest in this case, and in its letter presented two other
cases raised in previous reports, and requested the authorities
to take urgent measures to bring perpetrators of these abuses
to
justice. Amnesty International has repeatedly urged the
government to take such measures, but has yet to receive an
official response.
"Tribal councils have no legal standing, and the
Pakistani authorities have failed to take adequate measures to
prevent such bodies from taking the law into their own hands,"
Amnesty International said.
Amnesty International's worldwide membership is
campaigning on the woman's behalf.
The tribal council is an institution that goes back
to
traditional forms of conflict resolution through mediation; it
is
not part of the judicial system. It has no legal standing but
persists as a council of elders that passes informal judgements
seeking compromise solutions in local disputes. There are no
uniform terms of reference for the council, and there is no
legislation governing it. Amnesty International is concerned
about reports that
village councils have illegally tried and sentenced people to
cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments.
