Day: February 22, 2023

Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties for Indian Citizens

India is well-known for its cultural diversity. This great nation’s identity is formed by many religions, cultures, and languages. Along with this diversity, India has been the site of several significant political movements. The struggle for independence from British rule was one of these movements. Following our country’s independence in 1947, our leaders worked tirelessly to draught a constitution that would protect the rights of all citizens. The Indian Constitution is a document that discusses the fundamental rights and duties of Indian citizens. In this article, we will look at these fundamental rights in greater detail!

Picture Courtesy – https://www.nicholls.edu/

What are the fundamental rights?

The fundamental rights are the fundamental rights guaranteed to all Indian citizens by the Constitution. Part III of the Constitution enshrines these rights ( Articles 12-35). Fundamental rights are not absolute, but are subject to reasonable limitations. Every Indian citizen is guaranteed seven fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
Article 12-35 of the Indian constitution establishes seven fundamental rights. It includes the right to equality (Article 14-18), the right to freedom (Article 19-22), the right against exploitation (Article 23-24), the right to religious freedom (Article 25-28), cultural and educational rights (Article 29-30), the right to property (Article 31), and the right to constitutional remedies (Article 32). (Article 32). Courts have the authority to enforce fundamental rights, subject to reasonable limitations.
  • Right to Equality (Article 14-18): The right to equality includes the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of caste, race, place of birth, sex, religion, and equal opportunity for employment.
  • Right to Freedom (Article 19-22): These rights include the freedom to speak freely and express yourself, the right to form associations, unions, or cooperatives, the right to move, reside, and work.
  • Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24): This includes protection from human trafficking and forced labor.
  • Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28): This right includes the freedom to choose, practice, and promote the religion of your choice.
  • Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30): These rights include the right to protect minorities’ interests as well as the right to preserve their language, script, or culture.
  • Right to Property (Article 31): The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 abolished this right and replaced it with a legal right under Article 300A.
  • Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): This is the most important right because it grants the authority to petition the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
  • Fundamental rights are not absolute, but are subject to reasonable limitations, as stated in the constitution. Except in declared emergencies, these rights cannot be waived.

What are the fundamental duties under the Indian constitution?

The fundamental duties of citizens under the Indian Constitution are mentioned in Part IVA of the constitution. They were added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The amendment was done to instill a sense of patriotism and national pride in the citizens. There are ten fundamental duties mentioned in the constitution.
These fundamental duties are not enforceable by law but the constitution aims to inculcate a sense of duty in every citizen. Some of the fundamental duties include:
 
– protect our composite culture’s rich heritage; 
– protect our country and provide national service whenever the government requests it.
– promote harmony and a sense of common brotherhood among the people of India, regardless of regional, linguistic, or religious differences.
– value and preserve our country’s rich biodiversity; 
– protect mother earth as well as rivers, wildlife, forests, and lakes.
– protect public property and avoid violence;
Apart from the fundamental duties mentioned above, Indian citizens are also required to perform additional duties.

Differences between fundamental rights and fundamental duties:

The major difference between fundamental rights and fundamental duties is that fundamental duties are binding on all citizens, whereas fundamental rights are not.
–The Fundamental Rights, as defined in Part III of the Constitution, are all citizens’ basic civil and political rights. 
– The Fundamental Duties, as defined in Part IVA of the Constitution, are non-mandatory obligations that are regarded as moral obligations. 
– The courts can enforce the Fundamental Rights, but not the Fundamental Duties. 
– The Fundamental Duties were added to the Constitution recently, whereas the Fundamental Rights have been present since its inception.

Conclusion:

The Fundamental Rights are a set of rights to which all Indian citizens are entitled. These rights are enshrined in the Indian Constitution and protect the individual from abuse by both the government and private individuals and organizations. I tried to outline the seven fundamental rights that all Indians have, define fundamental duties, and differentiate between fundamental rights and fundamental duties in this blog post.

Traffic Rules and Regulations

In 1914, the first legislation ‘Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1914’ was passed in our country to regulate the motor vehicles and as well as other road users. Since then, traffic pressure on Indian roads has multiplied several times, and the first Motor Vehicle Act 1914 has been amended and revised several times by the Government of India to form the ‘The Motor Vehicle Act 1988’. Traffic rules and regulations are designed to ensure the smooth flow of motor vehicles on the road, which includes not only drivers but also pedestrians, cyclists, hand carters, and other road users. Drivers and other road users must have a thorough understanding of traffic rules/regulations, traffic signs, and markings. The proper understanding of these rules can significantly reduce the number of accidents while also establishing a healthy and well-organized traffic system in our country.

Both pedestrians and the drivers should be disciplined & obey all the rules and regulations. So, I request every citizen of this country to follow the do’s and don’ts listed down below for pedestrians and drivers, respectively.

DO’s for pedestrians –

  • DO walk in a straight line down the sidewalk.
  • DO stop at crosswalks and pay attention to the signals.
  • DO pay attention to your surroundings when walking, especially at night and alone.
  • DO take the time to enjoy your walk even if you are in a hurry… look around and see.
  • DO smile if you happen to make eye contact with another human being.

DON’Ts for pedestrians –

  • DON’T stop randomly on the sidewalk without checking that people are right behind you.
  • DON’T jaywalk without looking.
  • DON’T wear headphones and have your music turned up so loud you can’t hear what’s happening on the street.
  • DON’T cut across the sidewalk to get to a shop or something without looking behind you.
  • DON’T walk into things while your head is down looking at your phone… trust me, it happens!

DO’s while driving –

  • Do always wear a helmet while riding a 2 wheeler.
  • Do always wear a seat belt. 
  • Do follow the speed limit.
  • Do be courteous towards other drivers and riders.
  • Do give pedestrians the right-of-way in crosswalks.
  • Do make room for bicycles. 
  • Do pay attention while driving, even if you are familiar with the area. A surprising number of accidents take place only blocks away from home!
  • Do use indicators.
  • Always keep to the left.
  • Do keep a safe distance.
  • Do always carry the important papers and your driving license.
  • Do drive cautiously in severe weather.
  • Do plan your long route journeys in advance. Take proper gaps in between.

DON’Ts while driving –

  • Don’t drive alcohol and drive, and don’t get in a car with a driver who has been drinking or using drugs.
  • Don’t talk on your cell phone and drive at the same time. If you need to make or answer a call, pull over at a safe place and then resume your journey.
  • Don’t let your emotions and frustrations get the best of you. Don’t engage in road rage, no matter how irritating another driver might be to you.
  • Don’t tailgate other cars, pass on shoulders, run stoplights or stop signs, or break any other rules on purpose.
  • Don’t drive if you are underage.
  • Don’t overtake suddenly.
  • Don’t use brakes suddenly.
  • Don’t overspeed over potholes.

Using Modeling and Simulation to Test Designs and Requirements

 Modeling is an efficient and cost-effective way to represent a real-world system. A model can represent key aspects of the system, including the underlying requirements, the components, and how those components communicate with one another. The model can be simulated, enabling designers to test designs before hardware is available, or to test conditions that are either difficult or expensive to replicate in the real world. Iterating between modeling and simulation can improve the quality of the system design early, reducing the number of errors found later in the design process.

Despite these advantages, designers who heavily rely on hand coding do not always take full advantage of modeling and simulation. Setting up tests can be difficult and time-consuming, and when separate tools are used for each domain, it can be challenging to obtain a system-level view of the design. As a result, defects that could have been found in the modeling and simulation phase are often found during the implementation phase, when defects are more expensive to fix.

These issues are addressed in Simulink®, a platform for modeling and simulation. Simulink supports not only multidomain modeling but also simulation, with its own set of ordinary differential equation (ODE) solvers. A fundamental advantage of using Simulink is that you can represent different domains, including control systems, state machines, and environmental models, in one model, and then run simulations within Simulink to verify that the model is built correctly. As the simulation runs, you have access to simulation analysis capabilities, such as data displays, state animation, and conditional breakpoints. After the simulation is completed, you can analyze any logged data with MATLAB® scripts and visualization tools.

In this article, we describe a workflow for building a component model from requirements, simulating and testing that component model, and then connecting it to a system-level model for further simulation and testing. To illustrate this workflow we will build and test the fault detection, isolation, and recovery (FDIR) component of the HL-20, a re-entry vehicle designed by NASA to complement the Space Shuttle orbiter. We will connect our component to a system-level model that includes environmental models, flight controls, and guidance, navigation, and controls (GN&C) systems, and then simulate the system-level model to validate its behavior.

What is Simulation Modelling

SN Sharma (2022) has rightly stated that “Simulation is a well designed model which should be representative of real world like situation, it can be done after taking into account all components with well-defined (cohesive) functions, and minimised dependencies on other component which can be done after getting thorough knowledge of the functioning conditions of the model.”

If we restrict ourselves to simulation software, and to simulation design (ignoring aspects of development process and code access), there are three main strongly-related areas of best-practice which I would regard as universal to all simulation (precisely because they are universal to all software), and which are echoed in computational science best-practice papers (Sandve et al. 2013; Wilson et al. 2014), software engineering textbooks (Sommerville 2011), and practitioner best-practice handbooks (McConnell 2004); all backed by empirical research (Oram & Wilson 2010):

Automated Reproducibility
Being able to recreate any run of the software—for testing purposes and to check claims about its outputs—in an automated way (not just via manual recreation from documentation). This includes provenance (and perhaps automated recreation) of the entire computational environment (since results can vary based on things like the versions of external libraries used).

Cohesive, Loosely-Coupled Design
A design separated into components with well-defined (cohesive) functions, and minimised dependencies on other components (loose-coupling). This massively aids the debugging, maintenance and reusability of the code. This often involves reusing recurring structural and behavioural forms that have been shown to help solve common design issues: SE calls such forms design patterns (Gamma et al. 1995; Buschmann 1996). Such forms help establish a shared software design vocabulary at a higher level of abstraction.

Testability
Being designed in a way that facilitates testing at different levels (e.g., single class, component or whole system) and, where possible, includes automated tests as part of the software deliverable. In particular, automated tests provide a bank of regression tests which can be continually re-run to check that changes have not caused bugs elsewhere (i.e., caused previously successful tests to fail). Such tests become the central driver of the development process in the increasingly-used Test-Driven Development (TDD) approach (Jeffries & Melnik 2007).

1.3
Software exhibiting these properties is highly reusable (given access to it) and its implementation will typically involve reuse of existing software where it exists. In the simulation domain, there are many toolkits which provide reusable, well-tested software for simulation development which include (a) templates for model elements relating to one or more modelling paradigms—such as agent-based modelling (ABM), discrete-event simulation (DES) or system dynamics (SD); and (b) supporting infrastructure code to create and run models, such as for visualisations, simulation control interfaces, and input/output handling.

1.
There has been some emerging work which tries to define new simulation frameworks and abstractions which better embody some of these principles; e.g., the modular architecture and best-practice of JAMES II (Uhrmacher 2012; Himmelspach & Uhrmacher 2007), or test and experiment specifications which are model-based (Djanatliev et al. 2011) or domain-language-based (Ewald & Uhrmacher 2014).

However, there appears to be virtually no discussion of these issues more generally for ‘mainstream’ simulation using widely-used toolkits such as, in the ABM case, NetLogo (Tisue & Wilensky 2004), Repast Simphony (North et al. 2013), MASON (Luke et al. 2005), or AnyLogic (Borshchev & Filippov 2004). In particular, there is nothing which allows simulation practitioners to understand how these ideas might be embodied in some best-practice simulation design, and to therefore have some frame to assess existing toolkits and make more informed decisions on their choice of simulation platform (and thus understand the strengths and weaknesses of their simulation software design with respect to this best-practice).

Utilities.
General utilities (not specific to the domain model or upper layers) for (a) data types (e.g., linked lists); (b) input/output capabilities, such as to/from different file formats; and (c) general algorithmic facilities such as random number generators, probability distributions or differential equation numerical solvers. These can interact; e.g., probability distributions could be initialised from external files.

Domain Model.
The code representing the abstraction of the real-world system, including the representation of space and time.

Execution Control.
How the domain model is actually executed, which typically amounts to instantiating a ‘root’ object and stepping through a schedule of actions (provided by a domain model component) to ‘unfold’ time dynamically. Because non-domain-model objects also need to interleave their actions in simulated time, this layer includes that capability. This is a ‘thin’ layer, but nevertheless a well-defined one.

Meta-Data Capture.
Code (scheduled in simulation time) to capture and calculate meta-data; i.e., derived model state (possibly held as a time series to capture changes over time) or atomic model state captured over time.

This layer includes any writing of outputs to file (or database) because this can be tightly coupled with meta-data capture; in larger-scale simulations, time series data may be captured in a rolling window for storage reasons (perhaps with this window used for visualisation), with outputs written to file as they ‘drop out of’ the window (or via some other buffering strategy).

State & Control Presentation.
The parts of the user interface which present model state and controls as part of a user interface. The presentation may be visual or textual. Where current model state is being presented, this directly uses the Domain Model layer. If meta-data is being presented, this uses the Meta-Data Capture layer.

In particular, note that a given domain model might have multiple presentations, with multiple alternative visualisations per component; such solutions require a layered domain model separation.

Experiments Definition.
The parts of the user interface which support the definition of simulation runs (experiments), possibly including multi-run experiments. This mainly consists of how model inputs are defined and passed on to the model, and any automated manipulation of them across multiple runs for things like sensitivity analysis. Because this tends to be particularly generic to any simulation (and modellers using multiple toolkits may want a vendor-neutral solution), separate experimental platforms exist (Gulyás et al. 2011), and I am aware of simulation consultancies who develop their own in-house.

References

 

ALLAN, R. J. (2010). Survey of agent-based modelling and simulation tools. Tech. Rep. DL-TR-2010-007, Science & Technologies Facilities Council (STFC), UK.

BORSHCHEV, A. & Filippov, A. (2004). From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: Reasons, techniques, tools. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society.

BRAILSFORD, S. C. (2014). Discrete-event simulation is alive and kicking! Journal of Simulation 8(1), 1–8.

BUSCHMANN, F. (1996). Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: a system of patterns. Wiley, volume 1 ed. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0471958697.

COLLIER, N. & Ozik, J. (2013). Test-driven agent-based simulation development. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Winter Simulation Conference (Pasupathy, R., Kim, S. H., Tolk, A., Hill, R. & Kuhl, M. E., eds.). IEEE.

DAVISON, A. P., Mattioni, M., Samarkanov, D. & Teleńczuk, B. (2014). Sumatra: A toolkit for reproducible research. In: Implementing Reproducible Research (Stodden, V., Leisch, F. & Peng, R. D., eds.), chap. 3. Chapman & Hall, pp. 57–78.

DJANATLIEV, A., Dulz, W., German, R. & Schneider, V. (2011). VERITAS—a versatile modeling environment for test-driven agile simulation. In: Proceedings of Wintersim 2011 (Jain, S., Creasey, R. R., Himmelspach, J., White, K. P. & Fu, M., eds.). http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc11papers/325.pdf.

EVANS, E. (2004). Domain-Driven Design: tackling complexity in the heart of software. Addison-Wesley.

EWALD, R. & Uhrmacher, A. M. (2014). SESSL: A domain-specific language for simulation experiments. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 24(2). . [doi:10.1145/2567895]

FOWLER, M. (2004). UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language. Addison-Wesley, third ed. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0321193687.

FOWLER, M., Rice, D., Foemmel, M., Hieatt, E., Mee, R. & Stafford, R. (2003). Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. Addison-Wesley.

GAMMA, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley.

GILBERT, N. & Troitzsch, K. G. (2005). Simulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press, 2nd ed.

GREEN, T. R. G. & Petre, M. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 7(2), 131–174. . [doi:10.1006/jvlc.1996.0009]

GRIMM, V. & Railsback, S. F. (2005). Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton Series in Theoretical and Computational Biology. Princeton University Press. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0691096651.

GULYÁS, L., Szabó, A., Legéndi, R., Máhr, T., Bocsi, R. & Kampis, G. (2011). Tools for large scale (distributed) agent-based computational experiments. In: Proceedings of CSSSA 2011. Computational Social Science Society of the Americas (CSSSA).

GÜRCAN, O., Dikenelli, O. & Bernon, C. (2013). A generic testing framework for agent-based simulation models. Journal of Simulation 7(3), 183–201. . [doi:10.1057/jos.2012.26]

HIMMELSPACH, J. & Uhrmacher, A. M. (2007). Plug’n simulate. In: 40th Annual Simulation Symposium (ANSS’07). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE. .

JEFFRIES, R. & Melnik, G. (2007). TDD: The art of fearless programming. IEEE Software 24(3), 24–30. . [doi:10.1109/MS.2007.75]

JOINES, J. A. & Roberts, S. D. (1999). Simulation in an object-oriented world. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference (Farrington, P. A., Nembhard, H. B., Sturrock, D. T. & Evans, G. W., eds.). .

KERNIGHAN, B. (1979). UNIX for Beginners. Bell Telephone Labs, 2nd ed.

LUKE, S., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Panait, L., Sullivan, K. & Balan, G. (2005). MASON: A multiagent simulation environment. Simulation 81(7), 517-527. [doi:10.1177/0037549705058073]

MCCONNELL, S. (2004). Code Complete: A practical handbook of software construction. Microsoft Press, second ed. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/9780735619678.

MILLER, J. H. & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton Studies in Complexity. Princeton Press.

MILLINGTON, J. D. A., O’Sullivan, D. & Perry, G. L. W. (2012). Model histories: Narrative explanation in generative simulation modelling. Geoforum 43(6), 1025–1034. . [doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.06.017]


MULDER, J. D., van Wijk, J. J. & van Liere, R. (1999). A survey of computational steering environments. Future Generation Computer Systems 15(1), 119–129. . [doi:10.1016/S0167-739X(98)00047-8]

MÜLLER, J. P. (2009). Towards a formal semantics of event-based multi-agent simulations. In: Multi-agent Based Simulation IX, no. 5269 in LNCS. Springer.

NIKOLAI, C. & Madey, G. (2009). Tools of the trade: A survey of various agent based modeling platforms. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(2), 2. https://www.jasss.org/12/2/2.html.

NORTH, M. J., Collier, N. T., Ozik, J., Tatara, E. R., Macal, C. M., Bragen, M. & Sydelko, P. (2013). Complex adaptive systems modeling with Repast Simphony. Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling 1(1), 3+. . [doi:10.1186/2194-3206-1-3]

NORTH, M. J. & Macal, C. M. (2014). Product and process patterns for agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of Simulation, 8, 25-36. . [doi:10.1057/jos.2013.4]

ORAM, A. & Wilson, G. (eds.) (2010). Making software : what really works, and why we believe it. O’Reilly. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/9780596808327.

RAILSBACK, S. F. & Grimm, V. (2012). Agent-based and individual-based modeling : a practical introduction. Princeton University Press. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/9780691136745.

RAILSBACK, S. F., Lytinen, S. L. & Jackson, S. K. (2006). Agent-based simulation platforms: review and development recommendations. Simulation 82, 609–623. http://www.humboldt.edu/ecomodel/documents/ABMPlatformReview.pdf. [doi:10.1177/0037549706073695]

ROPELLA, G. E., Railsback, S. F. & Jackson, S. K. (2002). Software engineering considerations for individual-based models. Natural Resource Modeling 15(1), 5–22. [doi:10.1111/j.1939-7445.2002.tb00077.x]

ROUCHIER, J., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Polhill, J. G. & Takadama, K. (2008). Progress in model-to-model analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 11(2), 8. https://www.jasss.org/11/2/8.html.

SANDVE, G. K., Nekrutenko, A., Taylor, J. & Hovig, E. (2013). Ten simple rules for reproducible computational research. PLoS Comput Biol 9(10), e1003285+. . [doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285]

SEGAL, J. (2008). Scientists and software engineers: A tale of two cultures. In: Proceedings of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group PPIG 08.

SOMMERVILLE, I. (2011). Software engineering. Pearson, 9th ed. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/9780137053469.

STODDEN, V., Donoho, D., Fomel, S., Freidlander, M. P., Gerstein, M., Leveque, R., Mitchell, I., Larrimore Ouellette, L. & Wiggins, C. (2010). Reproducible research: Addressing the need for data and code sharing in computational science. Computing in Science & Engineering 12(5), 8–13. .

STODDEN, V., Guo, P. & Ma, Z. (2013). Toward reproducible computational research: An empirical analysis of data and code policy adoption by journals. PLoS ONE 8(6), e67111+. . [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067111]

TISUE, S. & Wilensky, U. (2004). NetLogo: Design and implementation of a multi-agent modeling environment. In: Proceedings of Agent 2004.

UHRMACHER, A. M. (2012). Seven pitfalls in modeling and simulation research. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (Laroque, C., Himmelspach, J., Pasupathy, R., Rose, O. & Uhrmacher, A. M., eds.).

VIANA, J., Rossiter, S., Channon, A. A., Brailsford, S. C. & Lotery, A. (2012). A multi-paradigm, whole system view of health and social care for age-related macular degeneration. In: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, WSC ’12. Winter Simulation Conference. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2429759.2429884.

WHITLEY & Blackwell, A. F. (2001). Visual programming in the wild: A survey of LabVIEW programmers. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 12(4), 435–472. . [doi:10.1006/jvlc.2000.0198]

WILSON, G. (2014). Software carpentry: lessons learned. F1000Research . [doi:10.12688/f1000research.3-62.v1]

WILSON, G., Aruliah, D. A., Brown, C. T., Chue Hong, N. P., Davis, M., Guy, R. T., Haddock, S. H. D., Huff, K. D., Mitchell, I. M., Plumbley, M. D., Waugh, B., White, E. P. & Wilson, P. (2014). Best practices for scientific computing. PLoS Biol 12(1), e1001745+. . [doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001745]

ZEIGLER, B. P., Gon Kim, T. & Praehofer, H. (2000). Theory of modeling and simulation : integrating discrete event and continuous complex dynamic systems. Academic Press, 2nd ed.

ZINN, S., Himmelspach, J., Uhrmacher, A. M. & Gampe, J. (2013). Building Mic-Core, a specialized M&S software to simulate multi-state demographic micro models, based on JAMES II, a general M&S framework. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 16(3), 5. https://www.jasss.org/16/3/5.html.

https://www.mathworks.com/company/newsletters/articles/using-modeling-and-simulation-to-test-designs-and-requirements.html