LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
Dear Prospective Members,
At the outset on behalf of the Executive Board, we extend a warm welcome to all of you and
congratulate you on being a part of the AS MUN 2025.
The committee being simulated, would unlike most other simulations you must have heard of
or been a part of; focus on political intellect and analytical application of thoughts and strategic
application of thoughts in resolving impending politically sensitive bilateral issues.
Kindly note, we are not looking for existing solutions, or statements that would be a copy paste
of what the leader you are representing have already stated; instead, we seek an out of the box
solution from you, while knowing and understanding your impending political and ideological
limitations.
This Introductory guide would be as abstract as possible, and would just give you a basic
perspective on what you can expect from the committee and areas wherein which your research
should be focused at this given point in time. Given, the extremely political and volatile nature
of this committee, your presence of mind and politico-analytical aptitude is something which
we as the executive board would be looking to test.
That being said, kindly do not limit your research to the areas highlighted further but ensure
that you logically deduce and push your research to areas associated with the issues mentioned.
Kindly note, that unlike most conventional/unconventional committees you have
attended, this committee shall have “substantive” intervention by the Executive Board.
The objective of this background guide is to provide you with a ‘background’ of the issue at
hand and therefore it might seem to some as not being comprehensive enough. If you feel that
the Guide does not cover all the issues and it could have been compiled in a better way by
giving more information or links or better arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’, we think that would
be the appropriate time to pat our backs for we successfully managed to compile a ‘Background
Guide’ and not a ‘Study Guide’ which most of the Executive Board members fail to
differentiate. We feel that ‘study guides’ are detrimental to the individual growth of the
delegate since they overlook a very important part of this activity, which is- Research. We urge
you to look beyond political rhetoric and engage in meaningful deliberation that respects both
national integrity and human dignity.
Looking forward to seeing your commitment, creativity, and collaboration.
Regards,
Noordeep Kaur (Moderator)
Ashank Goyal (Deputy Moderator)
ABOUT THE COMMITTEE
The All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM) is a simulation of an informal, closed-door
meeting among major political parties in India. While not a constitutionally mandated body,
the AIPPM is a vital platform for fostering dialogue, achieving consensus, and resolving
pressing political issues before they are introduced in Parliament. It serves as a space for
constructive deliberation among leaders across party lines, enabling the exchange of ideas,
alignment of strategies, and conflict resolution without the constraints of formal legislative
procedure.
In a Model UN simulation, the AIPPM provides participants with a unique opportunity to role-
play as representatives of Indian political parties, bringing to life the complexities of national
politics. Delegates are expected to think, speak, and negotiate as political leaders or party
spokespersons, addressing key issues from the perspective of their assigned portfolios. The
committee emphasizes collaboration, rhetoric, and policy-driven debate over rigid procedural
formalities.
Unlike international committees, AIPPM discussions are deeply rooted in the Indian political
context. Delegates must consider the historical, social, and economic dimensions of the issues
at hand, while aligning their views with their party's official ideology, public stance, and
electoral interests. The committee aims not only to stimulate informed debate but also to
provide insight into the challenges of coalition politics, ideological negotiation, and real-time
crisis management in Indian governance.
Through this platform, delegates will sharpen their analytical skills, enhance their
understanding of Indian polity, and gain experience in navigating high-stakes political
discussions with diplomacy and strategy.
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ATTENDANCE
At the beginning of the session, the Executive Board will conduct a Roll Call to determine the
presence of delegates. This establishes quorum and confirms delegate participation for the day.
AGENDA SETTING
The conference will commence with the adoption of the agenda. The sequence in which the
two agenda items will be discussed shall be determined through a formal voting process on the
first day of the committee.
OPENING STATEMENT
Each delegate is required to present a brief Opening Statement, outlining their political stance,
priorities, and preliminary views on the agenda(s). This allows the committee to understand
each delegate's ideological direction and set the tone for deliberations.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE SESSION
The committee alternates between Public Sessions, which are on-record, media-accessible
discussions, and Private Sessions, which are closed-door negotiations or informal dialogues.
Delegates may propose motions to shift between the two formats based on the nature of the
discussion. The Executive Board holds discretion to approve or deny these motions.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT
At the end of the debate, each delegate will deliver a Concluding Statement, summarizing their
stand on the agenda, any proposed solutions, and their closing remarks. This provides a final
opportunity to make an impact on the committee's overall direction.
PRESS RELEASE
Based on the proceedings, the committee will collaboratively draft a Press Release,
summarizing key discussions, positions taken, and any outcomes recommendations. This
document is designed for external communication and reflects the collective voice of the
AIPPM.
POINTS AND MOTIONS
Point of Order (POO): Used to raise a procedural issue or point out a violation of the rules of
procedure. Delegates may raise a POO during another delegate's speech.
Point of Parliamentary Inquiry: Used to seek clarification on procedural matters. Delegates
may raise a parliamentary inquiry to ask questions about the rules or the agenda.
Points of Information (POIs): Delegates may raise Points of Information during another
delegate's speech to seek clarification, pose a question, or challenge a point. The speaker holds
the discretion to accept or decline a POI, POls must be concise and relevant to the speech being
delivered.
Point of Personal Privilege: This point is raised when a delegate experiences personal
discomfort that hinders their ability to participate-such as issues with audibility, room
temperature, or seating. It may be raised at any time.
Motion to Adjourn: Proposes to end the session.
Right to Reply: The Right to Reply may be granted when a delegate feels personally attacked
or misrepresented during the proceedings. Requests for a Right to Reply are subject to the
Chair's discretion and will only be entertained if the nature of the remark justifies such a
response.
Motion to Shift to a Private Session: Proposes a shift from the ongoing public deliberation to a
closed-door private session, allowing candid discussions or negotiations.
Motion to Shift to a Public Session: Proposes a return to public discourse from a private session,
resuming formal discussions in front of the media and observers. No language barrier.
VALID SOURCES
• Government Reports
• Reports published by various ministries (eg.. Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice) provide official data, policy positions, and
developments relevant to national and state governance.
• Official Government Websites
• Standing Committee and Commission Reports
• Reports published by various Parliamentary Standing Committees, Law Commissions,
and other expert bodies are vital sources for policy-level recommendations and
critiques.
• Right to Information (RTI) Disclosures
• Verified responses obtained under the RTI Act, 2005, provide first-hand evidence and
government positions on administrative, legal, and policy matters.
• Parliamentary Debates and Transcripts
• Manifestos and Policy Documents of Political Parties
• PRS Legislative Research
INTRODUCTION TO THE AGENDA
The agenda of this AIPPM session revolves around the complex, sensitive, and highly debated
issue of the national implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, and
the National Register of Citizens (NRC). At its core, the deliberation aims to strike a balance
between three critical pillars: national security, human rights, and constitutional values. As
India navigates the demands of demographic management, national integrity, and humanitarian
responsibility, this discussion has profound implications on the future of Indian democracy and
secularism.
The topic has spurred nationwide debates, legal challenges, public protests, and intense
political polarization. The question that this committee will answer is not merely whether these
policies are lawful or effective but whether they reflect the ethos of the Indian Constitution,
align with global human rights standards, and address legitimate security concerns without
marginalizing vulnerable populations.
This is not just a legislative issue. It is a constitutional moment. It touches upon the heart of
India’s identity as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. The implementation of
these laws, and the resistance to them, has opened the floodgates to questions about
majoritarianism, religious freedom, citizenship rights, the federal structure, and institutional
accountability. Thus, the topic demands careful consideration and collaborative dialogue.
BACKGROUND OF THE CAA AND NRC
A. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019
The CAA was passed by the Indian Parliament in December 2019 and came into force on
January 10, 2020. It seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 by providing a pathway to Indian
citizenship for persecuted religious minorities — specifically Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains,
Parsis, and Christians — from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who entered India on or
before December 31, 2014.
Some Key Provisions:
• Fast-track Indian citizenship for the above six religious communities.
• Applicable only to migrants from three Muslim-majority neighboring countries.
• Reduces the required residency period from 11 years to 5 years for eligibility.
• Excludes Muslims from the scope of this provision.
Supporters argue that the CAA corrects a historic injustice toward minorities in India's
neighborhood, offering refuge to the oppressed. However, critics argue that it violates the
principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution by excluding Muslims, including groups
like Ahmadiyyas and Shias, who face persecution.
B. National Register of Citizens (NRC)
The NRC is an official record of those who are recognized as Indian citizens. The most notable
implementation has been in Assam, where the Supreme Court mandated NRC exercise led to
the exclusion of over 1.9 million people from the final list published in August 2019.
Some of the goals of NRC:
• Identify and remove illegal immigrants.
• Strengthen internal security.
• Maintain demographic balance.
However, the exercise has raised grave concerns about documentation gaps, potential
statelessness, and bureaucratic inconsistencies. Many of the excluded individuals include
women, the elderly, and marginalized communities who lacked access to historical
documentation.
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE SO FAR
A. Legislative Actions
• Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed in December 2019.
• Rules under the CAA were notified on March 11, 2024, after significant delay due to
public backlash and the COVID-19 pandemic.
B. Administrative Implementation
• The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a portal in 2024 for eligible applicants
under CAA to apply for Indian citizenship online.
• CAA has not yet been implemented in Assam, due to state-specific sensitivities and the
outcome of the NRC process.
C. Plans for NRC
• While no formal nationwide NRC has been rolled out, government officials have
reiterated their intention to implement it in a phased and legally sound manner.
• The government has emphasized that NRC would be universal and not religion-based.
D. Digital Infrastructure & Surveys
• Initiatives such as the National Population Register (NPR) have been proposed as
precursors to a national NRC.
• Pilot projects and data digitization efforts have been launched in select states.
In tandem, these initiatives are part of the broader narrative of citizen verification that is slowly
taking shape across the country.
CURRENT SCENARIO AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
A. Judicial Challenges
• Over 200 petitions are pending before the Supreme Court challenging the
constitutionality of the CAA on grounds of religious discrimination and violation of
Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
• The matter is still under review, with a constitution bench expected to be formed for
final adjudication.
B. Public Protests
Widespread protests erupted across the country in late 2019 and early 2020 (e.g., Shaheen
Bagh, Jamia Millia Islamia), many led by civil society, students, and women.
• Protests were temporarily curbed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent
lockdowns.
• The movement, however, has left a lasting legacy of civil activism and constitutional
discourse.
C. State Responses
• Several states such as Kerala, West Bengal, Punjab, and Rajasthan passed resolutions
opposing the CAA.
• Some states have expressed unwillingness to implement NRC.
• This has sparked debates on federalism, and whether a state can defy a central law.
D. International Reactions
• International bodies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (UNHCHR), have expressed concern over potential discrimination.
• Several foreign governments have raised human rights concerns in bilateral and
multilateral forums.
• The issue has been used by foreign press and rights organizations to question India’s
democratic credentials.
ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH ENDS
Pros:
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) are
viewed by proponents as vital tools for enhancing India’s national security and demographic
clarity. One of the most frequently cited advantages is the protection of persecuted
minorities. India, as a regional power with deep civilizational roots, has a humanitarian
responsibility to offer refuge to Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Parsis, and Jains
fleeing systemic oppression in neighboring Muslim-majority countries like Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. The CAA provides a legal framework to formalize their status
and secure their human rights, helping integrate them socially and economically.
Another important benefit lies in clarifying and structuring India's citizenship policy, which
has historically been fragmented and reactive. The NRC, if implemented with fairness and
transparency, can serve as a definitive registry of Indian citizens, helping to eliminate ghost
identities and improve governance, law enforcement, and electoral integrity. With better
citizenship data, the government can rationalize welfare distribution and ensure only eligible
individuals access government benefits.
Supporters also believe that both CAA and NRC enhance national security by identifying and
removing illegal immigrants who may pose demographic or security risks, particularly in
border regions such as Assam. From a political standpoint, these laws fulfill long-standing
electoral promises and resonate with the ideological sentiment of restoring justice to
displaced Hindus from neighboring nations, a narrative that is strongly backed by a significant
voter base. Lastly, initiatives like NRC could improve data governance, bringing more
accuracy and coherence to population databases, especially when integrated with Aadhaar,
NPR, and other digital systems.
Cons:
Despite its perceived benefits, the CAA-NRC framework has faced intense criticism for
fostering religious discrimination and undermining India’s secular constitutional identity.
The explicit exclusion of Muslims from the CAA has raised alarms among legal scholars and
civil society activists, who argue it violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which
guarantee equality before law and prohibit religious discrimination. By selectively including
only certain religious groups, critics claim the act erodes the secular ethos of the Indian
Republic.
The NRC, as seen in Assam, presents severe challenges regarding documentation. A large
portion of India's population, particularly rural communities, women, Adivasis, Dalits, and
urban poor, do not possess adequate documentation to prove ancestry. This makes the exercise
not only administratively complex but also potentially exclusionary. The possibility of
statelessness looms large, especially for those left out of the NRC and not eligible under the
CAA, creating fears of mass disenfranchisement.
There is also the issue of bureaucratic inefficiency. The NRC process in Assam saw several
errors, delays, and appeals, with many genuine citizens excluded while suspected illegal
immigrants remained listed. If implemented nationwide, this could become a logistical
nightmare, overburdening the legal system and administrative machinery.
From a social perspective, these laws risk deepening communal divides. Widespread protests,
fear-mongering, and communal tensions could emerge, as seen during the 2019-2020 anti-CAA
movements. The economic burden is another crucial aspect—experts estimate that a
nationwide NRC could cost tens of thousands of crores, diverting resources from essential
welfare and infrastructure programs.
Lastly, such policies may create a trust deficit between the state and its citizens, especially
minorities. In a time where institutional credibility is already under strain, laws perceived as
discriminatory could trigger civil unrest, legal gridlocks, and long-term damage to the fabric
of Indian democracy.
THE WAY FORWARD
Navigating the complex and emotionally charged landscape of the Citizenship Amendment Act
and the National Register of Citizens requires a measured, inclusive, and constitutionally
respectful approach. As India stands at a crossroad between ensuring national integrity and
upholding its democratic ethos, the path ahead must delicately balance security concerns
with humanitarian and constitutional commitments.
From the Government’s Perspective:
For the current administration and its supporters, the CAA and NRC represent steps toward a
more secure and streamlined citizenry, aimed at addressing long-standing demographic and
legal ambiguities. Their vision entails a uniform and reliable national database to filter out
undocumented immigrants while giving refuge to victims of religious persecution. However,
any move toward full-scale implementation must reckon with India’s pluralistic social fabric
and ensure that transparency, accessibility, and fair representation are embedded in every
stage of the process. As many critics and legal observers have pointed out, the government may
need to recalibrate its approach by investing in trust-building mechanisms, and possibly
redefining eligibility or evidentiary requirements in a more inclusive and context-sensitive
manner.
From the Opposition and Civil Society’s Perspective:
Opponents of the current framework argue that while protecting persecuted minorities is
important, the selective nature of the CAA and the potential fallout of a nationwide NRC pose
grave threats to constitutional values and social harmony. They call for a more inclusive
citizenship policy, possibly one grounded in secular humanitarianism rather than religious
identity. From this standpoint, any forward movement must address statelessness risks, the
invisibility of the poor, and historic inequalities in documentation access. For the
opposition, the ideal way forward involves legislative scrutiny, judicial safeguards, and
perhaps rethinking or expanding the scope of the CAA to include all marginalized refugees
irrespective of faith.
Diplomatic Middle Ground:
The future direction may not lie in abandoning the CAA-NRC project altogether, nor in its
indiscriminate enforcement. A third path—grounded in dialogue, legal clarity, and state
cooperation—could prove most viable. This might include pilot projects, independent
oversight bodies, or gradual implementation informed by state-specific conditions. Most
importantly, the road ahead must consider not just the legality of identity, but the humanity
behind each case. As India negotiates these challenges, it must seek consensus through
democratic deliberation, ensuring that no citizen feels alienated and that no vulnerable
group is left unheard.
KEY DISCUSSION POINTS FOR THE COMMITTEE
To ensure that the deliberations of this AIPPM committee are both constructive and
nationally relevant, the following topics should be prioritised:
• Clarification of Legal Framework: There is an urgent need to dissect the legal
ambiguities surrounding both the CAA and NRC. Committee members should
consider proposing a uniform and constitutionally sound definition of citizenship,
along with due process protections for those excluded from registries.
• Protection of Marginalised Groups: Special attention must be given to the impact on
women, SC/ST communities, religious minorities, and migrant labourers.
Discussions should centre around the historical documentation gap and how policies
can be reformed to accommodate these vulnerabilities.
• Federal Dynamics and Implementation Mechanism: Given the diverging responses
of different states, the committee should evaluate the viability of decentralised or
state-specific implementations, with possible consultative mechanisms between
Centre and States to avoid conflict.
• NPR-NRC Linkage and Digital Privacy: As concerns grow over the integration of
the National Population Register (NPR) with NRC data, the committee must probe the
privacy, data security, and surveillance implications, and debate whether a legal
framework is needed to regulate the same.
• Judicial and Institutional Safeguards: What role should the judiciary, NHRC, and
civil society watchdogs play in reviewing and monitoring the execution of these
policies? This is crucial to maintain institutional credibility and safeguard
fundamental rights.
• Role of Media and Public Narrative: The role of media, misinformation, and
communal polarisation must be brought to the forefront. The committee must discuss
strategies to ensure responsible public communication and discourage fear-
mongering or political exploitation.
• International Diplomacy and Refugee Policy: Members should also deliberate how
India’s refugee policy, through the lens of CAA, affects its regional diplomatic
relations, global image, and adherence to international human rights obligations.
By focusing on these interconnected dimensions, the committee can move beyond rhetoric to
create informed, empathetic, and strategic policy recommendations, aligning national
security with constitutional morality and inclusive governance.
FINAL WORD FROM THE MODERATOR
As we prepare to delve into this nuanced and multifaceted discussion, it is essential to
remember that the questions surrounding the CAA and NRC are not merely legal or
administrative. They are deeply human. The debates in this committee will reflect not only the
ideological positions of various political actors but also the lived experiences of millions of
people whose futures may be shaped by these policies.
This committee must rise above partisan rhetoric and aim to serve the spirit of our Constitution.
One that champions liberty, equality, and fraternity. Delegates are encouraged to engage with
empathy, challenge assumptions, and contribute innovative solutions that respect both our
national interests and the rights of the vulnerable.
The journey of citizenship in India is one of evolution, inclusion, and resilience. Let this
committee be a space where the ideals of democracy are not just debated, but deepened.
Let the deliberations begin.
All the best!
Noordeep Kaur (Moderator)
Ashank Goyal (Deputy Moderator)