The state does not always have to directly constrain speech to create an environment hostile to free expression. Though they've certainly censored media connected to controversial topics like Kashmir before. In a sense, this sort of voluntary self-censorship is even more concerning, because it reflects a certain political temperature.

I believe they shut down all internet access in Kashmir, for months, following the conversion of Kashmir from a State into a Territory. Internet is now "back", in the sense that only 300+ white sites are now accessible again. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/asia/kashmir-intern...

So yeah... India is a troubled democracy with a tenuous relationship with freedom of speech.

So how to draw the distinction between this sort of self-censorship and the self-censorship that has often been seen as a positive outcome by those who defend it with the rational that the company is a private organization and isn't beholden to offer any concepts such as freedom of speech?