Withdrawing security of separatists

The government finally ordered withdrawal of security cover for the time being provided to five separatists leader namely Mirwaiz Umar Farooq of the Hurriyat Conference, Shabir Shah, Hashim Qureshi, Bilal Lone and Abdul Ghani Bhat. The action was anticipated immediate after the dastardly terror attack on CRPF convoy that killed over 40 soldiers that raised the seething anger among the people across the country. The decision came in the wake of tremendous public pressure.
Why these separatists were given security cover, and what its withdrawal means for the precarious relationship between the Indian government and separatists in the Kashmir Valley.
The Jammu and Kashmir administration offers security cover to separatist leaders on the basis of an independent threat perception by police. For example, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was offered security cover in 1990 after his father Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq was assassinated by terrorists.
Typically, the government never wanted to keep the separatism movement in Kashmir headless thus security cover is offered to moderate leaders who have agreed to hold parleys with the Indian government, although the move is often criticised for draining India's exchequer to “pamper” separatists who, some say, end up having the best of both worlds.
J&K government revealed that it had spent Rs 10.88 crore on the security of the separatist leaders. While Rs 10.36 crore were spent on the salary of the policemen guarding the Hurriyat leaders, another Rs 49.7 lakh were spent on the fuel for their vehicles.
However, it's not just the separatist leaders who get a security cover from the police. Several thousand political activists also get security from the Jammu and Kashmir administration. In 2015, the Omar Abdullah government had told the assembly that over Rs 506.75 crore were spent on the security cover of 1,472 political activists, including Kashmiri separatist leaders, in the state since 2010.
In 2016, disposing a PIL on the subject, Supreme Court dismissed the petition saying the court could not make decisions on what funds were given to whom and the government was well within its rights to give security cover to citizens facing threats.