I want to take a step back and consider the underlying issues here. 

This proposal appears to me to be a proposal based on an ongoing internal political issue within India about trying to "right the wrongs" of the perceived failure of IPv4 allocation policy by staking a claim for themselves in the IPv6 space.  This is highlighted by the ongoing demands for an NIR and now with prop-100 some IPv6 space as well.  

Prop-100 combined with the NIR is an expression of the desire for India to effectively be able to have what they consider it's "fair share" of IPv6 space and, implicitly through the NIR (even though it's not how it works) the ability to allocate it according to a set of rules which is suitable from the Indian perspective.

From the Indian perspective I'm sure this seems entirely reasonable.  The issue we see here on sig-policy is that presenting a policy for all APNIC members based on single country politics above technical merit isn't something that's accepted well.  Primarily because we, at least try, to consider these policies based on technical merit and benefit to all APNIC members.

My personal feeling is that Prop-100 and an NIR together aren't going to in fact benefit India long term.  The long term outcome is that by demanding space specific to a country rather than being part of the APNIC whole will in fact lead to the outcome that India doesn't really want as it will separate India off into it's own "small island" by this artificial restriction which will, as the IPv6 space allocated gets used up quicker than imagined, become it's own blockage to growth.   

India has growth potential for IPv6 well beyond what most of the rest of the world will achieve.   It will "consume" IPv6 space faster than almost any other country.  India's networks, which already compete or have presence in other nations will not be enabled by these policies, but limited by them.  I fear that any space allocated to India specifically will be sparsely allocated so quickly that new networks will not actually get the space to build out and compete within India.  I also feel that the space will become used up by those who do get it that they will find it a limitation anyway.  This will not benefit the Indian people, but prevent them from gaining more access to the internet.   

I oppose prop-100 not only for the lack of technical merit, but because I fear that creating artificial boundaries/limitations for each country will limit growth long term, not enable it and so will in fact will harm large growth countries in the APNIC region from scaling up to where their populations need it.   Allocation to each organisation, irrespective of country based on need will in fact give the best outcome as dividing up the IPv6 space into ever smaller parts for political reasons will cause it to become unusable much more quickly.

I also oppose prop-100 because at this time we do not need another argument about IPv6 allocation policies.  We need to just get on with IPv6 enablement.  We, and other RIRs are spending too much being too clever about rearranging IPv6 allocations and this is not moving us forward.  It is hindering IPv6 take up, and by doing so, is harming internet enabling those who need it most (ie. developing countries).

MMC