Why a strike is bad?

Let's put things in perspective before this post takes a start. Things are very clear that the strike is not getting the students anywhere apart from the fact that some noise that is largely non-audible outside the corridoors of HNLU is being made. Some students from rich political families (I don't need to mention names here!) move around with Nikon cameras hanging around their necks and take photos of spicy and interesting scenes which would have been infinitely more useful had these students been corresspondents in local newspapers which would sell their souls for a plate of free breakfast.
REASON FOR THE STRIKE
The reasons of maladministration and lack of facilities etc. have been quoted as those for the strike. The reason why a strike is done is to get some demands met. The university has set up a committee of teachers to take up the issues with the students. The strikers are not ready to talk to the committee. The strikers are not ready to interact with anyone but the media for publicity. Even without the dialogue, the university is already relenting to some demands that are made. Even then the strike is indefinite and keeps going on until the objective of removal of VC is attained.
WHO IS THE STRIKE DIRECTED AT
That brings me to the next idea, who is this strike directed at? Why? Is it legitimate? Most importantly, would it get us anything? The only aim of the strike is to remove the VC. Such a direction of a student protest is not only shallow but also shows the immaturity of the so called "movement". A strike is always called for a cause, a belief, and not just for the removal of an individual, against who the most "serious" charge is that he is a despot or a tyrant and that he fined people who are leading the strike. An example of the same is a student who was caught cheating in exam and was fined just a while back.