Bandh - Does it make sense as a form of protest?

Gandhiji launched the idea of Satyagraha and non cooperation as a means of protest. It was a way to prevent the British from enjoying the profits that arose out of Indian effort. So if Indians did not work in protest the British would suffer.

Nowadays we still practice 'Noncooperation' as a means of protest. But who are we making suffer? Recently there was a 'total' Bandh in the State of Karnataka. The Kannadigas were supposedly protesting the unfair decision of the Cauvery tribunal. There were rough calculations showing the loss to the state of approximately 500 Crore. Who is losing this money? The Kannadigas themselves! So is the concept of Bandh that one cuts off one's nose to spite one's face?

Everyone inferred that the people were behind the protest. But the truth is that there is coercion. Whenever there is a need to show that the Bandh has been successful men roam the streets preventing people from going to work. What kind of forced protest is this?

How do people come to know of Bandhs? Through the media of course.Does the media have a responsiblity to society? Why does the media report bandhs? Why cant there be a rule that the media does not report a call for a bandh? People who call for bandhs are obviously not working for the best interest of the people. The media cares about what is in the best interest of the people. They live off the people. So should they report what can be used by nefarious interests against the people?