The recent 36-hour ultimatum issued by the Working Committee of Kuki Civil Society Organisations (WCKCSOs), demanding the immediate lifting of travel restrictions on Kuki-Zo commuters between Kangpokpi and Churachandpur, has rightly sparked concern—not just for the reasons behind the demand, but for the glaring hypocrisy that underpins it.
Labeling the current situation as an “uncivilized and undemocratic blockade,” the WCKCSOs have sought to position themselves as defenders of civil liberties and freedom of movement. Yet, their silence and inaction on the prolonged blockade of National Highways—particularly those connecting the Meitei-majority Imphal valley to the rest of the country—speak volumes about their selective outrage. When the same basic right to free passage is denied to Meiteis, the WCKCSOs not only fail to condemn it but, in effect, become complicit through their indifference or tacit support.
Such dual standards erode the very democratic values the WCKCSOs claim to champion. A blockade, whether against Kuki-Zo or Meitei, is a violation of fundamental rights. It disrupts lives, restricts access to essential supplies, endangers patients and students, and fosters deeper communal divides. If the WCKCSOs truly believe that road blockades are “uncivilized,” they must unequivocally condemn all blockades—not just the ones that inconvenience their own community.
The contradiction is stark and troubling. On one hand, they demand immediate action against restrictions on their movement; on the other, they remain silent—or worse, justify—restrictions that affect others. This is not activism. This is opportunism wrapped in the cloak of victimhood.
The ongoing ethnic tensions in Manipur have made the state fragile. In such a delicate context, leadership—especially from civil society—requires responsibility, empathy, and a commitment to the common good. Selective advocacy only deepens mistrust and delegitimizes the genuine grievances of communities. The WCKCSOs, by drawing lines between “us” and “them” even on humanitarian issues like mobility and access, are undermining the prospects of peace and reconciliation.
Civil society organisations are expected to be the moral compass of any conflict. They must rise above parochial loyalties and stand for universal rights. They must not mirror the divisiveness of politics but instead act as bridges of understanding. Unfortunately, WCKCSOs, through this ultimatum, have chosen to wield the language of rights when it suits them and discard it when it applies to others.
If Kuki-Zo commuters deserve safe passage—and they absolutely do—then so do Meiteis. If road blockades are wrong in Churachandpur to Kangpokpi road, they are equally wrong on the National Highways. Justice, if it is to be just at all, must be consistent.
This editorial does not dismiss the hardships faced by any community. But unless organisations like WCKCSOs adopt a principled and inclusive stand, they risk losing moral authority. Demanding justice while denying it to others is not just a contradiction—it is a betrayal of the very ideals they claim to uphold.
Manipur needs healing. That healing cannot come from one-sided ultimatums. It must come from mutual recognition of pain, shared responsibility, and a genuine commitment to peace for all.