Fool’s Paradise

Eudaimonia. Felicidad. Contentezza. Bonheur. Happiness. An emotion that is supposed to transcend the barriers of language and culture. Unite people and spread joy. But is happiness such a one-dimensional shallow feeling? Something for which we always wander never realizing what it truly means. Men far greater than me have tried to define happiness within the confines of a few words. Aristotle put it eloquently when he called it a state of activity. Eleanor Roosevelt elaborated on her definition elaborating upon criterions to achieve happiness.

“Someone once asked me what I regarded as the three most important requirements for happiness. My answer was: A feeling that you have been honest with yourself and those around you; a feeling that you have done the best you could both in your personal life and in your work; and the ability to love others.”

Without going into further such wordplays, the commonalities can be seen emerging from these definitions. Though this does beg the question that can this unequivocal feeling be put into words that might apply for the everyday John or is it defined by unique parameters for every individual. After all you cannot judge a fish by it’s ability to climb a tree and neither can you put a millionaire in a pauper’s place and ask him to find happiness there.

We often hear about parameters that state how happy the general population of a country might be. The United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network has been providing us with a World Happiness Report outlining the state of world happiness and causes of both happiness and misery. In addition to this, in the last thirty years, more than 3000 empirical studies have been conducted, some of them bearing questionable titles like ‘How much happiness is there in the world?’ and ‘Causes and correlates of happiness’. Most of these use factors like GDP and surveys among the demographic to quantify something that might just be unquantifiable. But to what extent are such measures valid and reliable as they seek for an answer to a seemingly abstract question. U.S.A which is seemingly the 14th happiest country in the world continues to be ravaged by unemployment and dissatisfaction with the government bringing into question the validity of such reports.

In spite of its vague nature, happiness is something we strive for in our day to day lives often making it an end goal for us. “I just want to be happy”, a line often heard from the millennial generation a they navigate through the creeks and crevices of life. Most of our decisions are guided by our pursuit for happiness, often failing to identify happiness right when it is staring us in the face. This never-ending pursuit goes on and many end up losing track of the path they set out on often settling into the monotonous idiosyncrasy of their life. Other try and look for happiness in material possessions or perhaps in the arms of a loved one. But if you cannot find happiness on just your own from within yourself, how can you expect things or people to fill the void that might be bubbling under your skin?

A wise man once said that you will always find the answer in your heart where it has been long waiting since before the question. Maybe that is where our Pursuit of Happiness is supposed to lead us too. And in that moment of contentment, flourishment and fulfilment, we might end up discovering the fruits of our strenuous pursuit for the all elusive Happiness.

Human 3.0

The dominance of humans on this planet has been greatly due to their abilities to use inanimate objects, engineering them to meet their desires. To a certain extent these objects or more precisely tools have been more useful than the animate ones itself. The process of evolution took time but the development of these tools was gradual with a very steep slope. Unarguably, the tool that has led us to discriminate other creatures against humans has been the technology. Life has never been this easy in the human history all credit goes to the level of technology around us. Even today it is impossible to predict the point of saturation of it. But the stretch of one of the fields in technology that has startled humans is Artificial Intelligence. Fundamentals laid on the ground to describe the human thinking based on very clever manipulation of sequences of 1s and 0s. This field of intelligence has seen lot of ups and downs during the course of its development. But this giant was never out of scope and its mammoth possibilities to transform human lives even further gave us the taste of every colour.


AI is not the technology of any other generation but now. It might be either “Siri” or “Alexa” assisting you right on your demand or spotting the driverless car in traffic beside you. For instance, the smarter web browsing experience whether the filtering of junk mails or personalising the web, our dependence on it narrates the story . With every sunrise we are not only gifted with a brand new day but also with better experience due to new and improved algorithms heavily influenced by this technology. The ability of these machines driven by AI – – to show advanced cognitive skills, to learn, to perceive,  to process data – has made them capable to perform any task with high accuracy.


On 1st january 2016, the dream for a better future took off driven by 193 nations. The dream is to see a better world by the end of 2030 revolving around the development of economy along with attention to the amelioration of the environment. The United Nations ‘17  “Sustainable Development Goals” is set to promote prosperity in the country and at the same time protect the planet, economic growth and the social needs for the same including education, health, social protection, and job opportunities along with checking the climate change and environmental protection.  The concept of “AI for good” is to explore the implementation of it for the greater good of society and ultimately using it to cut the problems faced by us.


If the coin gets flipped, we might end up with the very last invention of the human race. We consider ourselves supremely intelligent from our primitive animal cousins, but in reality we are only fractionally more intelligent than them. But that tiny fraction had led us to develop tools, language , civilisation and much more. When AI gets more intelligent than us, not fractionally but by million times called the “singularity”, our breath could be the price we pay. All that is needed now is to be very careful with this technology but the twist being the impossibility of the situation in predicting it before it actually happens.

Citizen X

The privacy of a person is one of his/her most prized possessions. If at all the person feels that his/her privacy has been violated, it is a great source of concern and is looked down upon. Hence, the privacy of a citizen is of great importance to the governance of a country.

Recently, the nine- judge bench of the apex court in India declared that the previous stance of the top court which states that the right to privacy does not come under the fundamental rights granted to the citizens, as void.  

A privacy law refers to the law regulating, storing and the usage of personally identifiable information of individuals which can be collected. India’s supreme court upholds right to privacy as a fundamental right granted to its citizens. It is an intrinsic part of article 21 that protects life and liberty of the citizens and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by the part III of the constitution. In the instance of encroachment of privacy, with the aid of the law, necessary legal action can be taken.

Many aspects of the right to privacy have been taken into consideration when we talk about a privacy law. The preservation of personal intimacies and sexual orientation (a much debated and volatile topic in India) has been viewed one of the most essential aspect of one’s privacy. The protection of heterogeneity and the recognition of diversity in a vast country such as India is the crux of forming the law for the people. One’s right to safeguard information, emotional and physical well being and various other facets of life have been included in the formation regulation of the privacy law.


Homosexuality is romantic and sexual attraction and behaviour between member of the same gender. Many a times, a person’s identity is defined by their sexual inclination. Homosexuality is considered to be a taboo subject in the Indian society which discriminates the citizens. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in India face Gay and transgender individuals continue to face widespread discrimination in India.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (colonial era) makes sex with the same people of the same gender punishable by law. It states that “whoever voluntarily had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment od either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable for a fine.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear in open court curative petitions – the last legal recourse available to litigants – on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is an opportunity for it to rectify the mistake of re-criminalising homosexuality in the country.


The Aadhar card is a unique identification mark, different for every citizen of India which had been developed by the government of India, with an aim to organise the country. The project was introduced in 2009, by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). This program wants each and every citizen to have a unique number which involves an Aadhar number which involves issuing an Aadhar number as well as one Aadhar card, which can later be linked to various schemes and services that are provided by the government.

In the recent times, there have been many speculations regarding the Aadhar card and its close monitoring in every aspect of a person’s life, throwing light to the infringement of privacy felt by many citizens. A recent unanimous judgment by the Supreme Court of India (SCI) in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India is a resounding victory for privacy. The ruling is the outcome of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Indian biometric identity scheme Aadhaar.


Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the method of removing a foetus or an embryo before it can survive outside the uterus. Abortion caused purposefully is called an induced abortion. When allowed by the law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine.

Abortion in India is legal only up to twenty weeks of pregnancy under specific conditions and situations, where the continuance of the pregnancy involves risk to life for the mother or which could cause significant physical and mental health damage.

There have been many instances where unwanted pregnancies have to been carried out due to late detection, crossing the twenty weeks mark. Rape victims and unmarried girls don’t have a strong say in the legal abortion, forcing many to choose the illegal route resulting in the complications in health. Unmarried women find it difficult to abort, because the pregnancies are healthy, but they don’t want to be carried out due to the societal stigma attached to it. Many physical deformities and terminal illness the foetus might have can be detected after 25 or 28 weeks, eliminating the opportunity of an abortion if required.

There have been many debates involving the extension of the permittivity of abortion mark and discussion of giving the pregnant woman more say in whether or not the pregnancy is to be carried out, especially for the unmarried women in India.

The right to one’s own body and what happens to it has been a topic of major discussion. The privacy of an abortion and the records to be kept private has been another source of concern, the privacy of abortion records which are included in health reports posing various difficulties for the pregnant female to get proper health benefits and insurance later in life. Thus, it is high time India makes abortion laws and any laws relating to abortion as it addresses woman’s rights to health, dignity, liberty and privacy.

The various aspects of privacy have been a topic of discussion and debate in India. Granting freedom of expression and safeguarding the privacy of its citizens has been the main idea. Drafting the laws in solid words so as to have a systematic approach in the wide spectrum of privacy is essential for the privacy law in the country. To make the citizen feel safe and respected has been the main objective of the most recent hearings, moving the country to a more transparent yet safe environment.

Pandora’s Box

Traveling from an East Asian sea port, like Busan, South Korea to a European one like Rotterdam would take the average European cargo ship about 45 to 60 days- a journey that would circumvent all of Asia and Europe, passing through the Suez canal. Moreover, for such a journey, with an assumed speed of about twenty knots, traveling the 12000 nautical miles between these two ports would consume about 5000 tons of fuel. Not only does this cost a fortune, it also causes severe damage to our environment – increasing the rate of global warming and upping global smog levels. What if there was a shorter way, one that could effectively cut distance, time, cost and the carbon footprint of this journey? Introducing the fabled North-West passage.

In fact, this passage remained a myth until the year 1906, when Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first to traverse this passage over the course of three years. Further successful attempts by Henry Larsen in 1940 and Willy de Roos in 1970 opened up a whole world of opportunities for further traders. However, this passageway remained seasonally open and difficult to navigate even in the best of circumstances therefore using it as a commercial trade route remained unfeasible.

Eventually with the coming of the 21st century the world saw a rise in global temperatures, triggering a phenomenon we all know as global warming. This global warming saw a gradual melting of ice in the polar regions – leading to the complete opening of routes that hadn’t been easily accessible prior to the 21st century- namely, the northeast passage, the transpolar route and the northwest passage. Geographers predict that the northwest passage will be open to commercial use by the early 2030s – an event that would result in the reduction of thousands of miles of travel on major shipping routes. This would allow shipping companies to transport much larger ships in lesser time than the Panama Canal- the sea route that is currently in use- saving them millions of dollars in transportation. However, the opening of the north-western passage poses just as many problems as it does solutions.

One of these, a problem which has been a source of controversy since the journey of the SS Manhattan through this passage in 1969, is Canada’s claim to it. Since this strait passes through the Canadian archipelago, the Canadian government has claimed these waters as their own. They state that Canada reserves the right to decide which ships are granted transit through this strait and it can debar any vessel from traversing along the north-western passage. This is in stark disagreement with the United States of America and the European Union, who view this as more of a “transit passage”- where, although Canada retains the right to the resources, it can’t control which ships are allowed through. Inevitably, this has since led to conflict between Canada and the rest of the world.

One of the first instances of this conflict dates to 1985 when the US coast guard ship Polar sea passed through the strait en route from Greenland to Alaska. This infuriated the Canadian public despite the fact that the ship submitted to checking by Canadian officials. Tempers flared and a rift was formed between the United States and Canada. Later, in 2005, a fresh round of controversy was sparked when US nuclear submarines were alleged to have traveled through Canadian waters without any form of governmental approval. One of the first moves by Canadian prime Minister Stephen Harper as he was elected into office was to adopt a firm stance on the arctic issue, claiming that the strait was to be classified as Canadian internal waters and be referred to as such by all Canadian forces as of April 9th, 2006. In July 2007,Prime Minister Harper finally announced the building of a deep-water port in the far north, strengthening Canada’s position over the strait.

And it isn’t just the United States and Canada being affected by the opening of this passage. Consider the Russian Federation. After having planted a flag in the arctic seabed- claiming it as their own in 2007- they recently traversed this passage in an oil tanker between Norway and South Korea, taking just over 19 days. A similar journey over the Suez canal would have taken a significantly larger amount of time, marking this as the first of 15 such Russian expeditions. Even the Republic of China has laid eyes on the passage as it sees this as an amazing opportunity to minimize costs and hence increase revenue. Although neither of these countries have chosen a side in the ongoing conflict and hence could be persuaded in either direction, both have shown signs of inclination towards the United states/EU block.

Environmentalists, on the other hand, have a completely different take on the situation. They believe that we should focus on how the strait will impact nature, instead of who owns it. While on one side of the coin, the opening of the passage results in a newer shorter sea route that vastly reduces shipping distances and hence fuel; on the other we have a myriad of problems- from increased number and size of ships (leading to damaged ecosystems), oil spills, chemical leaks and general damage to flora and fauna caused by human activity. In fact, the opening of the passage itself can be discussed from an environmental standpoint as it points to increasing global warming and carbon emissions. With this multitude of problems surrounding this region, we can only hope that the powers involved take the right steps and think about the entire world community in any of their decisions, and plan for the years coming ahead.

The Swinging Wings


A couple centuries ago, at a meeting – one of dramatic importance, as it turned out– the attendees’ seating was divided according to what or whom they believed in. A trivial simplification of matters, as it might have seemed back then, turned out to define, for perhaps all of following history, the labels of the political spectrum. The legend of the Estates General of 1789, apart from the following French Revolution, recounts how it gave the world the idea of a the Right – the section that believed in conserving the order as it had always been; and of the Left – the part of the order that believed in change and equality.

Time passed, and the pendulum swung, from the right end. Time seemed to be of change and revelry, until the bob went further left. The ugliness that seemed characteristic of the existence of the orthodox seemed to manifest itself alongside the ideas of the liberals.  And with the spread of democracy people witnessed their leaders, who once promised them a free world open to ideas, now churn their votes to become the new elite, knee deep in corruption and hypocrisy.

The pendulum now began it’s journey back to where it started from.

And on went the clock.

The swings have ever since – and perhaps even before – been periodic, with each society having its own clock. Newer groups formed, taking ideas from both sides, eventually leaning toward one of them, to varying extents. One party promises cleansing of the bad the the previous did, comes into power, builds the nation the way it wishes, creates its own mess and eventually succumbs to the opportunity another party strikes in that mess. In this gamble, the people may both gain and lose, depending on factors ranging from the strength of the ruling group and its will to elevate the State, to the constructiveness of the opposition’s strength and its detachment from anarchy.

Today more than ever, these pendulums seem to be intertwined across the globe. The closer the societies, the greater is the number of threads connecting their polities. Geographical proximity might be one of the most influential way two societies are close, but it quite definitely isn’t the only one, as exchange of resources isn’t bound by physical adjacency anymore. Energy, raw material, services, trade and increasingly, immigrants, can be traveling between nations diametrically opposite on the globe, perhaps with much greater an ease than they would flow between bordering nations. These exchanges further expand into the exchange of ideas and ambitions, therefore constituting the many threads that pull the strings in either country. So, it shouldn’t be surprising to see a sudden surge in the Left winning elections across Europe; why then should the opposite seem unreal?

The human mind fetches hope. Change is both, the cause as well as the consequence of hope. Movements erupt when populations feel something needs to change, hoping for the wrongs to be rectified by a new leadership. And this alone, is enough to fuel the perpetual see-saw of power, between the Left and the Right.

Solace In Death ?

When life gives you lemons, as per society’s advice you’re expected to make lemonade out of them. But what if you do not want any lemonade? Maybe the lemons seem way too sour for any sugar you know of? Maybe you don’t find yourself left with any resources or energy to make any? Or, maybe you’re simply not interested in lemonade, and just want to let go. Does the society have a right to infringe upon your right to choose?

It’s an age-old debate that we are looking at here, i.e., whether or not a person has the right to end his or her own life, and further, whether or not another person may assist or even decide upon one’s life or death, for one’s sufferings to end. The dilemma here is popularly between two views, that constitute the basis of this moral paradox: first, that the right to die and the choice of which are extremely personal, thus demanding for the non-interference of the State; and the other, that constructing a system where the exercise of this right, without its abuse being minimized is impossible. Euthanasia, has been and is being legalised in numerous nations across the globe. What remains is the question over the morality of euthanasia. Should we let a person die if we see no scope of improvement? Or should we leave it to time?

Can we choose for people who cannot themselves?

We have of course chosen for other people in the past. Be it conquering lands to rule people we deemed unfit for self-governance, or granting people special statuses, thinking they would perish otherwise; be it burning women alive, worrying about their survival post their husbands’ death, or reserving political opportunities for them, sceptical of their acceptance as leaders otherwise; or  be it banning same-sex marriage thinking homosexuals couldn’t choose rightly;; people have taken decisions for other people thinking that those other people could not decide for themselves. And as much as one can see, the correctness of these choices was directly dependent upon the correctness of the judgement of the decision makers, about whether the people were capable to choose for themselves or not.

Perhaps, so is the case with morality in the domain of euthanasia. Determine first whether or not the person can elect his or her own fate. There are innumerable cases in which despite doctors having given up, the patients, due to mere will power have made it through the severest of conditions. This can be capitalised upon, by pushing for a psychological encouragement of the patient, to have his or her will kept strong.

But what if the patient wants release? Hope is the greatest God humans have ever known. What if the person sees none left in survival? What if he sees hope in release? No one, obviously has any right whatsoever to hold him back from pursuing this hope. The question here is, how may we determine with surety, if the person really wants to die? Until humanity finds out a way to accurately determine the strength of one’s intentions to die, the legality of euthanasia shall remain a dilemma, perhaps subjective to the cases themselves.

IIT Guwahati Model United Nations Conference