Critics and skeptical observers question whether the repeated use of indefinite hunger strikes is an effective strategy for achieving long-term policy change. While the protest has successfully generated media attention and drawn political figures to the site, some argue that these tactics have yet to produce tangible legislative or constitutional results. There is concern that the movement, by repeatedly returning to the same demands without a breakthrough, may be struggling to maintain its focus and relevance, potentially leading to a cycle of protest that exhausts public energy without forcing the government to the negotiating table.
Furthermore, some analysts suggest that the involvement of various opposition parties has politicized what was originally a grassroots campaign, potentially alienating those who prefer a non-partisan approach to activism. There are also questions regarding the government's perspective, which has previously accused protest leaders of inciting unrest and using provocative rhetoric. Critics point out that the government has already engaged in multiple rounds of talks through high-powered committees, and they argue that the current agitation may be complicating these delicate negotiations rather than facilitating them. For these observers, the risk lies in the protest becoming a platform for political posturing, which may ultimately hinder the very reforms it seeks to achieve by hardening the government's stance against perceived external pressure.