The Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) has strongly criticised former BJP spokesperson for allegedly failing to produce evidence related to the Tronglaobi killing even after completion of five days.
With the self-imposed deadline having passed, COCOMI issued a detailed rejoinder questioning the credibility, intent, and consistency of Bijoy’s statements regarding the controversial case.
The organisation also reacted sharply to Bijoy’s reported remark at a press conference that his statements were “completely true” and that those who failed to understand them should “update their IQ.” COCOMI termed the comment insulting and said it reflected an attempt to portray members of the organisation as unintelligent.
Questioning Bijoy’s own political and organisational background, COCOMI alleged that he had failed to maintain stability across different groups and political platforms. While acknowledging that Bijoy is educated, the organisation stated that education alone does not guarantee wisdom, morality, or truthfulness.
COCOMI pointed out that Bijoy had earlier been associated with an armed group, later worked with civil society organisations, and eventually joined the BJP as a senior spokesperson before leaving the party without securing even a local election ticket. According to the organisation, these developments reflected his inability to sustain long-term political and organisational relationships.
The organisation further argued that intelligence should not be judged solely through IQ, stressing that Emotional Intelligence (EQ) and Social Intelligence (SQ) are equally important in public life. COCOMI said many of its members were ordinary citizens who entered social activism out of emotional commitment to the land and society during Manipur’s ongoing crisis.
Referring specifically to the Trongloabi incident, COCOMI questioned Bijoy’s public claim that the killing was carried out jointly by “an intelligent person” and “a politician who could never become a minister.” The organisation demanded that he clearly identify the individuals instead of making what it described as vague and cryptic allegations.
COCOMI also questioned Bijoy’s stand that the Trongloabi case was purely a criminal matter that should not be publicly discussed. It asked why he continued to hold press conferences and make public accusations instead of directly submitting evidence to investigating authorities if he genuinely believed the matter should remain within the legal process.
The organisation further criticised the timing and nature of Bijoy’s remarks, stating that Manipur is already passing through a period marked by violence, displacement, destruction of homes, road blockades, kidnappings, and deepening social divisions. It questioned whether such statements were intentionally creating confusion and mistrust during an already volatile situation.
COCOMI also challenged Bijoy’s repeated assertion that the Tronglaobi killing was unrelated to the Meitei-Kuki conflict. It asked on what authority he was making such claims and whether he possessed any special evidence to support them. If such evidence existed, the organisation urged him to place it before both the authorities and the public.
Strongly rejecting Bijoy’s allegation that protest movements following the Tronglaobi incident were financed through black money, COCOMI described the accusation as “serious and defamatory.” The organisation maintained that its activities are sustained through public donations and demanded that Bijoy identify the individuals or organisations allegedly involved if he possessed credible proof.
The organisation also criticised Bijoy’s reported statement that “I do not work under COCOMI,” describing it as arrogant and immature. It stated that democratic values, truth, and public institutions do not belong to any individual and that genuine leadership is demonstrated through accountability and action rather than rhetoric.
Clarifying its own position, COCOMI stated that although it is not a government authority, it has every right to defend its integrity when allegations involving black money and manipulation are directed at its public movement. The organisation accused Bijoy of attempting to divert public attention through alternative narratives instead of presenting verifiable facts.
COCOMI reiterated that it was Bijoy himself — not the organisation — who publicly referred to the involvement of “an intelligent man” and “a politician who could never become minister.” According to the organisation, it had merely asked him to clearly identify the individuals concerned.
In its strongest remarks, COCOMI stated that Bijoy’s continued failure to provide evidence while making indirect allegations had compelled the organisation to view him as a “traitor to the Manipuri community” and a “collaborator in the proxy war.” However, it added that if he eventually produces credible evidence and publicly exposes the real masterminds behind the killing, the organisation would be willing to reconsider its position.