GDMUN
GDMUN
GDMUN
GDMUN
Study Guide
Regards,
Executive board
AIPPM
Introduction to AIPPM:
The All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM) is a non-technical but powerful committee in
the Model United Nations (MUN) setting. It is a meeting between all the political parties of
the nation, typically called before the session of the Parliament or before the introduction of
a bill. The purpose of the AIPM committee is to arrive at a consensus before the sessions
begin. It is a supplementary body to the Parliament without any legislative provisions. The
AIPPM committee in MUN aims to mimic this reality by reproducing the stages of policies
and jurisdiction, with delegates representing personalities from the divergent group of
Indian political parties. Delegates are expected to be well-versed with their political party's
ideology, manifesto, and beliefs. This helps them grasp the multi-layered processes that go
behind policy-making and governance in India. The AIPPM committee is unlike other
conventional MUN committees, as it is characterized by heated debates, cross talks, high
levels of negotiations, and political democracy. It echoes hopes of change and evolution.
The AIPPM committee is a great opportunity for delegates to learn about the Indian
political system and to develop their skills in negotiation, public speaking, and critical
03
thinking. It is also a chance to make new friends and to network with other MUNers from
India and around the world.
Here are some of the skills that delegates can develop in the AIPPM committee:
1. Negotiation skills: The AIPPM committee is all about negotiation. Delegates will
need to be able to build relationships, compromise, and reach consensus with
delegates from other political parties.
2. Public speaking skills: Delegates will have many opportunities to speak in front of
the committee. They will need to be able to articulate their points clearly and
persuasively.
3. Critical thinking skills: Delegates will need to be able to analyze complex issues and
to develop creative solutions.
4. Teamwork skills: The AIPPM committee is a team effort. Delegates will need to be
able to work together effectively with their fellow delegates to achieve their goals.
5. If you are interested in learning more about the Indian political system and
developing your skills in negotiation, public speaking, critical thinking, and
teamwork, then the AIPPM committee is a great option for you.
Valid Sources:
1. Government Reports (Each ministry publishes its own reports including External
Affairs Ministry)
2. PTI , PIB
3. Government Websites
4. Government run News channels i.e. RSTV, LSTV, DD News
5. Standing Committee Reports/ Commission Reports
6. RTI Proofs
7. Parliamentary Standing Committee reports
8. Questions and Answers of the parliament
04
balancing individual freedoms with the state's duty to maintain law and order. The judiciary
plays a pivotal role in interpreting and upholding these legal provisions, ensuring the
constitutionality and proportionality of measures taken to quell civil unrest. Collaborative
efforts among law enforcement agencies, policymakers, and the judiciary are indispensable
in navigating this intricate landscape while upholding individual liberties and preserving
public safety. In this dynamic context, Model United Nations delegates are encouraged to
delve into the complexities, drawing on legal references, real-life incidents, and
constitutional principles to contribute to nuanced discussions and pragmatic solutions.
History:
To understand the roots of civil unrest in India, a journey into history is essential. India's
struggle for independence, marked by seminal events such as the Jallianwala Bagh
massacre in 1919, reflects the high price paid for the pursuit of freedom.
Post-independence, challenges persisted as seen in the linguistic reorganisation of states
in 1956, which, while addressing linguistic concerns, also led to protests and socio-political
tensions.
The Emergency declared in 1975, a dark chapter in India's democratic history, witnessed a
suspension of fundamental rights, a stark reminder of the delicate balance between
individual liberties and the state's authority during times of crisis. The lessons learned
during this period have significantly influenced subsequent legal and constitutional
developments, reaffirming the commitment to upholding democratic values. These
historical chapters are integral to the fabric of civil unrest, contributing to the evolution of
legal frameworks and societal responses. The resonance of historical struggles for justice,
equality, and democratic rights echoes in contemporary movements, shaping the discourse
on civil unrest and public safety in India. This intricate fabric of civil unrest intertwines with
judicial precedents, notably the controversial ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
case during the Emergency. The subsequent evolution of judicial activism, seen in cases
like Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2006), reflects the judiciary's commitment to
balancing individual freedoms with the need for public safety. Real-life incidents, such as
the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests, vividly demonstrate the ongoing
challenges of managing civil unrest in India's diverse and vibrant democracy. Navigating
these complexities occurs against the backdrop of constitutional guarantees, particularly
Article 19(1)(a) – the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is not
absolute, as emphasised in Article 19(2), allowing for reasonable restrictions in the interest
of public order. The legal arsenal to address civil unrest is embodied in Sections 141 to 160
06
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offering a comprehensive framework to tackle offences
related to unlawful assemblies, rioting, and affray.
Communalism in India:
One must understand that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were
07
actually not the reason for communalism because these differences were there during the
mediaeval times itself. Hindus and Muslims were living with their own distinct identities,
but they had a common, unifying culture. They learnt each other’s’ traditions, customs, and
evolved a common language, ‘Urdu’. Even in the fields of music, painting, architecture,
administration, dress, food,
they learnt a lot from each other. The difference of faith alone wasn’t a reason
for conflict. The differences arose only during the colonial period (mainly post the events of
the 1857 rebellion), when many developments were seen and they were responsible for
the rise and growth of communalism in modern India.
around 2800 people were killed, including 2,100 in Delhi. Human rights
organisations and newspapers across India believe the massacre was
organised.
Anti-Conversion Laws:
from monetary fines to imprisonment, with punishments ranging from one to three
years of imprisonment and fines from 5,000 to 50,000 Indian rupees. Despite
criticism of India’s anti conversion laws, some human rights bodies have
acknowledged that these laws have resulted in few arrests and no convictions.
However, some observers note that these laws create a hostile, and on occasion
violent, environment for religious minority communities because they do not require
any evidence to support accusations of wrongdoing. All the state laws are similar in
scope. They do not directly ban conversion but make conversion by “force,
allurement, inducement or fraud” illegal. Of course, these terms are not defined,
giving the state a wide berth to harass the powerless. For instance, in Jharkhand’s
new law – the Religious Freedom Bill, 2017 – the word “force” also includes the
“threat of divine displeasure”. So, what criteria do we evolve to situate threat of
divine displeasure in this context? How is the state supposed to prosecute on the
basis of this? The term “allurement” is also not defined. So, is education or
healthcare “allurement”? And what is “fraud”? Jharkhand’s Act defines it as
“misrepresentation”. But then, considering the nature of religion itself, what does it
even mean to indulge in misrepresentation? Despite the fact that our Constitution
confers a right to “propagate” religion, statutes enacted in several states, which
make it difficult for preachers to proselytise and convert Hindus to religions like
Christianity, have been upheld on the grounds that propagating religion does not
include conversion. What would such a move mean for the secular fabric of the
country? While the courts have upheld the validity of the state wide anti-conversion
laws, however, how do we look it these from the lens of the principle of secularism,
especially in light of non-discrimination and freedom to profess religion? How do we
adequately differentiate between legally professing one’s religion and forcibly
converting another? Should there be a need to do that at all? How do we judge the
secular character of the law, in light of harassment by the state in one’s personal
choices or in light of the very letter and spirit of the law, or both?
In its 2014 parliamentary election manifesto, the BJP stated that Hindus who were
fleeing persecution from other countries would find a home in India. In keeping with
this promise, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act seeks to bring religious
considerations to bear on the acquisition of Indian citizenship. Whereas the
Citizenship Act of 1955 denies citizenship rights to all “illegal” immigrants, the
proposed bill excludes “minority religious individuals”—specifically
Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christian from “Muslim-dominated
countries” specifically Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan from the category of
“illegal immigrant.” The Act further reduces the requirement for immigrants to be
011
neutralised, from 11 to just 6 years of residence in India. The Act hence has would
exclude such persecuted Muslim minorities as the Rohingyas from Myanmar,
Ahmadiyyas from Pakistan, and Uighurs from China. Critics have claimed that
through this the Modi government has sought to align Indian nationalism with
Hindu nationalism. The central concern within this is the issue of granting
citizenship on the basis of religion. Civil Society and the opposition have raised
concerns that not only is such a measure exclusive and unprecedented, but it also
goes against Article 14 of the Constitution and hence violates the secular ethos of
India. Moreover, the North-eastern state have opposed it on the grounds that it
violated the Assam Accord of 1985. Does such a measure violate the secular fabric
of India? Is it a violation of Article 14? How do we approach the question of
citizenship with respect to religion and the principle of secularism? Are the criteria of
granting citizenship on the basis of religious minorities and not persecuted
individuals in line with the tenets of secularism?
commit a trespass in any worship place, or in sepulture, or burial, or place set apart
for burial rites.
Question of funding religious practices and endowments: NDA’s 2018 decision to cancel
Haj Subsidy:
The government in January 2018 abolished the subsidy being given to Haj pilgrims
every year. The policy to support Muslims in making the pilgrimage to Mecca in
Saudi Arabia, can be traced back to 1932, when the British enacted the Port Haj
Committees Act. In the ensuing decades, the Act has undergone numerous changes.
And in recent years it has called for significant criticism from various parties. In
2012, a Supreme Court order directed the Haj subsidy to be gradually phased out in
the coming ten years. In 2017, a Central Haj Committee meeting decided to do away
with the subsidy by the following year. This policy move by the Government raises
various pertinent question with respect to the relationship between the state and
religion. While this has beentermed anti-muslim by some sections of the society,
many others have contended that the State should do away with subsidising or
spending on religious events and activities altogether. The Haj is not the only
religious pilgrimage being funded by the State. A number of other religious tours are
supported by the government. For instance, the state and central governments
spend considerable amounts on the pilgrim facilities at the four Kumbh Melas in
Haridwar, Ujjain, Nashik and Allahabad. The Kailash Mansarovar yatra from North
India to themountains of Tibet is yet another pilgrimage which is organised by the
government with arrangements being made for security and health facilities. There
are various other such cases wherein the state spends on or funds religious matters.
While one can debate whether this move is anti-muslim or not and thus
discriminatory, however, the central question that this raise is of whether thestate
should at all fund or spend on religious matters? Is this in line with the ethics of
secularism? Does the come under the conception of state maintaining a principled
distance with religion or not? How, through this actof the state do we look at the
practise of secularism in India and the notion of principled distance?
AFSPA:
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was passed on 11 September, 1958 to handle the
chaos happening in the disturbed regions of the North Eastern region of the country. Later
due to the increasing insurrection the act was implemented in Kashmir as well. The act
provides the Indian armed forces with special permission to take whatever action they
consider necessary in the interest of maintaining law and order in the disturbed areas. An
area is declared to be disturbed according to the differences in the communities based on
religion, race, language, caste and region or any radical situation arises. AFSPA is only
imposed in those areas which have been declared disturbed by the government. AS soon as
the AFSPA law is implemented upon a state the Army and the armed forces are sent to the
concerned region. Any state declared as a disturbed state would stay in the control of the
armed forces for at least three months. Section (3) of the AFSPA act specifies that for the
central government to declare any area as disturbed the state government of the state’s
opinion should be considered deeply as to take any further action. AFSPA gives the armed
forces the following allowances:
I. Any suspect could be arrested without a warrant.
II. The armed forces could search any house without any search warrant.
III. The law enables the armed forces to forbid any gathering of five or more people in an
area.
IV. After giving due warning to any disturbing factor, if it still persists to stay the armed
forces have the authority to open fire on the disturbing factor.
V. If a person is a repeated offender and keeps at disturbing the peace of the area, then the
armed forces have been authorised to use force till his/her death.
VI. If the armed forces suspect any militant or offender hiding in a building, then the armed
forces can destroy the site.
The debate on AFSPA hinges around
fundamental human rights violations and the matter of security.
On one hand, AFSPA are required to maintain decorum and reduce encounters of violence
in areas which are fuelled by unrest. They help protect the country’s boundaries and require
special status and strict law, so that citizens of the state and potential insurgents cooperate
with the forces and stay civil. There is also the possibility that the special status that the
armed forces are provided contributes to the reasons why the citizens remain civil, in other
words under the force of fear. Without the special permissions accorded to them, the armed
015
forces may not be able to control a serious insurgency, should such an occasion arise in
disturbed areas. Dealing with home and foreign terrorists alike is not feasible without the
special permissions accorded to the armed forces, as claimed by the army. The armed forces
are also bound by morality in a social contract as they enforce law in disturbed areas in
return for the special permissions that allow them to do so. Furthermore, if AFSPA is
repealed in a particular area, the army would have to withdraw, leaving an area all the
more vulnerable to violence and attack. On the other hand, the special permissions in the
AFSPA have been repeatedly used for the wrong reasons. There are claims of the armed
forces using their legal immunity to force sexual favours and of conducting fake encounters
in disturbed areas. The Supreme Court recently ordered an investigation by a CBI Special
Investigation Team into these allegations and also for extra-judicial killings in Manipur.
Similarly disturbing reasons that stand against the AFSPA are the human rights violations
that it so clearly commits by existing as an act itself.
AFSPA is in violation of the following human rights in the Indian Constitution and
International Conventions –
Article 21: The right to life – As AFSPA gives the armed forces the right to kill suspects and
arrest them by force.
Article 22: The protection against arrest and detention: AFSPA gives the forces
authorisation to arrest any person simply on the basis of doubt.