Critics of the current political timing argue that prioritizing protests while the region is reeling from a deadly disaster is insensitive and potentially dangerous. They contend that the immediate focus of all political leaders should be on the ground, assisting with relief efforts and supporting the families of the victims. By shifting the narrative toward statehood protests, they argue that political figures risk diverting essential resources and public attention away from the urgent humanitarian crisis in Poonch and Rajouri.
This perspective emphasizes that the primary responsibility of any leader is the safety and welfare of the public. When lives are lost and communities are displaced, the optics of political maneuvering can appear to prioritize power struggles over the suffering of the people. Critics suggest that a unified approach to disaster recovery would be more effective and would demonstrate a genuine commitment to the well-being of the region's residents.
Furthermore, there is a concern that large-scale protests could further strain the security apparatus, which is already stretched thin by the need to provide support for flood-affected areas. The risk of civil unrest, combined with the logistical challenges of the floods, could create a chaotic environment that hinders the delivery of aid. Those holding this view urge political actors to postpone their agendas until the immediate danger has passed and the recovery process is well underway.
Ultimately, this viewpoint calls for a temporary suspension of political friction in favor of a collective, non-partisan response to the tragedy. They argue that the credibility of political leaders is best established through their actions during times of crisis, rather than through the pursuit of political goals that may exacerbate existing tensions.