Ignominious end of COCOMI’s sit-in protest: Was its purpose to divert attention from incompetent MLAs?

The decision by the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) to suspend its indefinite sit-in protest at Ima Market for seven days has sparked widespread criticism, particularly from the women vendors who were integral to the agitation. The suspension followed assurances of a mass operation in the hills by security forces and the transfer of the Jiribam killings case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). However, these measures are being perceived not as political gains but as the basic responsibilities of the state.
The killing of six civilians in Jiribam, including the brutal rape and murder of women and children, is undoubtedly a heinous crime that demands justice. Yet many argue that ensuring justice and maintaining law and order are fundamental duties of the state. The assurances provided by the government, while necessary, fail to address the larger issues that motivated the protest in the first place. Consequently, the suspension of the protest has led to a perception that COCOMI has settled for measures that the state should have already implemented, instead of pushing for broader political or social reforms.
This development underscores the growing frustration among the people of Manipur regarding the state and central governments’ inability to act decisively during the ongoing crisis. The sit-in protest at Ima Market was not merely a call for justice; it was a manifestation of the public’s desperation for basic rights and accountability. When protests are reduced to achieving what should already be the government’s responsibility, they risk becoming theatrical displays rather than effective movements for change.
The events surrounding the suspension also raise concerns about the conduct of COCOMI’s leadership. The decision to withdraw the protest without consulting the women vendors, who had been at the forefront of the agitation, has led to feelings of betrayal. The women have openly expressed their disappointment, stating that they were used by COCOMI leaders. Their frustration became evident when some vendors questioned the resolution during its late-night announcement, only to be met with arguments and the subsequent departure of the COCOMI leaders.
This behavior has fueled speculation about whether COCOMI is part of a larger strategy to pacify public anger while shielding the state government from further scrutiny. The timing and nature of the assurances, combined with the abrupt suspension of the protest, seem designed to diffuse tension without addressing deeper systemic issues. The state government, widely criticized for its incompetence in handling the ethnic conflict and its aftermath, appears to be leveraging such gestures to evade accountability.
By redirecting public focus to specific issues like the Jiribam killings, the protest may have been a calculated move to protect the ruling establishment from broader demands for accountability, including calls for President’s Rule. This strategy seems to have succeeded, as attention has shifted away from the government’s incompetence to internal discord at the protest site and fractures within the movement itself.
The question arises: is COCOMI, intentionally or unintentionally, aiding the state government in this charade? The lack of transparency and consultation in its decision-making process undermines its credibility as a representative body advocating for justice and integrity. Rather than empowering the public, this approach risks alienating those who have placed their trust in the organization.
For the protesting women at Ima Market, the suspension highlights the disconnect between leadership and grassroots participants. Their demands for justice and safety extend beyond symbolic actions or superficial assurances. They seek a government that not only fulfills its duties but also actively listens to and represents the voices of its people. The anger and disappointment expressed by the vendors reflect a broader sentiment: that the state’s response to their plight has been grossly inadequate.
This episode serves as a cautionary tale for COCOMI. Movements driven by public grievances cannot be treated as mere tools to manage unrest. They must aim for substantial political and social gains that go beyond the bare minimum expected of a functioning state. Leaders must act with integrity, ensuring that their actions genuinely serve the interests of the people they represent, rather than merely preserving the status quo.