The Eroding Legitimacy of COCOMI: A Leadership in Crisis

COCOMI’s initial suspension of the sit-in protests was widely criticized. The move was justified on the grounds that the Manipur government, through its MLAs, was pressuring the central government to act against the perpetrators of the Jiribam killings. This reasoning was both naïve and short-sighted. It underestimated the central government’s apparent indifference to Manipur’s demands and overestimated the influence of the state government.
The belief that the central government would heed the voices of state-level representatives, especially in a politically volatile situation, reflects either a lack of strategic foresight or a deliberate attempt to stall the momentum of public mobilization. For many in Manipur, this decision appeared to undermine the very essence of the protests, which aimed to achieve visible action and accountability. By calling off the agitation prematurely, Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) inadvertently gave the impression that it was complicit in weakening the people’s movement.
The central government’s lack of visible action following the suspension of protests has now confirmed the fears of skeptics. This inaction has only justified those who believe that COCOMI was used for halting the momentum of the protests, buying time for the state government to shield itself from scrutiny. The center’s apathy shows a harsh reality: the Manipur government, regardless of its internal pressures or assurances, holds little sway over decisions made in Delhi.
For COCOMI to have placed its faith in this dynamic reveals either an astonishing misjudgment or a deliberate abdication of responsibility. The leadership’s miscalculation has cost them the trust of the very people they claim to represent, raising doubts about their ability to navigate the political situation of Manipur.
The aftermath of this debacle has been damaging for COCOMI. While it has resumed its protests, including actions such as closing government offices, these measures seem more like desperate attempts to regain relevance than a well-coordinated strategy. The earlier decision to suspend the protests was met with opposition even within the community, with many arguing that the agitation should continue until tangible progress was achieved.
This internal division has tarnished COCOMI’s image as a unifying force. Its failure to anticipate the public’s discontent with the suspension has exposed a disconnect between its leadership and the grassroots. The question now looms large: does COCOMI still have the moral authority to lead this movement?
The more cynical interpretation of COCOMI’s actions suggests that the suspension of protests may not have been a blunder but a calculated move. There is speculation that the leadership, knowingly or unknowingly, allowed itself to be co-opted by the state and central governments. If true, this would mean that COCOMI’s leadership prioritized political expediency over the demands for justice and accountability. Such a betrayal would have devastating consequences for the trust that people place in civil society organizations as agents of change.
Even if this interpretation is overly harsh, the lack of clarity and communication from COCOMI’s leadership has fueled suspicions. Transparency is essential in a movement of this scale, and the absence of it only deepens the crisis of confidence.
Secondly, COCOMI must acknowledge its missteps and articulate a clear strategy moving forward. The resumption of protests is a step in the right direction, but these actions must be accompanied by a coherent plan that addresses the root causes of the unrest. Symbolic gestures, like shutting down offices, will not suffice; the movement requires sustained pressure on the state and central governments through a combination of grassroots mobilization and strategic advocacy.
Lastly, the leadership must distance itself from political influences that undermine its independence. The perception that COCOMI was “played” by the state and central governments has significantly damaged its credibility. To regain its stature, the organization must demonstrate that it serves the people of Manipur and no one else.