Concerned of the damage to its global image and reputation by the pro-democracy protest, the Beijing authorities finally agreed to the suggestion of the chief executive of Hong Kong, Carrie Lam to withdraw the Extradition Bill.

While the Chinese government withdrew the bill, so far no written avowal has been made. Even though the bill has been withdrawn, the pro-democracy campaigners say the protests won’t stop because there are still demands left to be met and Lam has violated the trust of her people.

At least two developments forced Beijing to announcement of the Bill; first, three months of escalating pro-democracy protest has impaired the image of the Beijing’s authority in Hong Kong since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997; second was the revelation by Lam, the most trusted comrade of the Chinese government, to quit as she was being prevented from acting by the authorities in Beijing.

Lam had earlier suspended the bill, but that did not satisfy the protesters who said that as long as the bill remained on the legislative agenda, there was every chance it could be resuscitated at any moment. She could not fully scrap it as China was in favour making it an Act.

Opponents of the bill saw it as a threat to the rule of law in the former British colony, putting people at the mercy of China’s justice system, which rights groups say is plagued by torture, forced confessions and arbitrary detentions.

Demonstrators were still calling for all demands to be met, with many placing emphasis on the independent inquiry. Lam said on Thursday that the independent police complaints council was credible enough to address the probe.

Response to the withdrawal was muted in mainland China. On the microblog Weibo, news of the withdrawal appeared to be censored and there were few reports of the news in Chinese state media.

This was also exposed in a leaked audio recording in the audio Lam, is heard saying she would quit if she had “a choice”. “I am feeling disgusted with the dictates of the Beijing bosses”.

This has been a loud and clear message for Beijing.  After this the Beijing rulers got scared of the global accusation that they have framed the bill to trample and undermine Hong Kong’s legal freedom and rights. They may also use it to intimidate or silence critics of Beijing.

It was in the wake of this nasty and self-inflicting development that China reconciled to the idea of crushing the protesters ruthlessly and conceding to their demands.

Sources maintain that the Chinese authorities are baying to ensure that the protest is finished before October 1, the day the People’s Republic of China marks its 70th birthday, a national holiday. This perception has created panic. Observers hold the view that Local authorities have been ordered to put down the protests before 1 October. Any protest or violent action would simply damage the reputation of China.

Fears of Tiananmen-style crackdown haunts the protesters. The only question that is featuring in the public domain is how far will China go to end Hong Kong’s unrest, which is still growing? Senior officials have spoken not only of “terrorist acts” but of “colour revolution characteristics”, implying of racist character of the protest.

While some pro-Beijing elements say that some agitators believed in Mao Zedong philosophy, it is significant that the Chinese government has refrained from identifying the protesters as believers in Maoism. Incidentally the curtain behind Lam’s stage carried the quotation of Mao Zedong: “A single spark can start a prairie fire.”

The Chinese leaders have so far relied on the Hong Kong government to suppress the protests, but the banning of rallies, brutal police tactics, thug attacks, the arrests of high-profile activists and metro line closures have failed to dampen the unrest. The matter of fact is existing situation has scared the Chinese authorities. If the Chinese rulers do not evolve some solution to the crisis the situation may further deteriorate and go out of hand.

Meanwhile the protesters have appealed to the British government to cancel the UK-China agreement. Anson Chan, the former second highest official in the city, said the UK should consider the issue again: “You promised Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy and basic rights and freedoms – when those are taken away from them, surely Britain has a legal and moral responsibility to deal with the consequences.”

Martin Lee, the veteran Hong Kong campaigner said it was all the more pressing to revisit the right of abode and related issues in light of the protest movement and the fact that the “one country, two systems” arrangement which underpins the Sino-British joint declaration was no longer working.