So Wikipedia hosted content objectionable to India's government, refused to take it down, was requested to provide identities of the users who provided it, refused, fought in court, appealed, and then offered a compromise which would involve keeping the identities of the users under seal but still allowing the court proceedings to go forward to whatever extent the government wanted to push the issue? That doesn't exactly sound like kowtowing to anyone who asks.

I'm not completely familiar with the issue, but that all is what it sounds like to me. I do understand the point of view that they should have thumbed their nose at the court and let whatever happens happen, but that's not always a good way, and refusing to do that isn't always capitulation.

Also, do you have a citation on that ban? That sounds to me like unreliable narration of bans that happened for some other reason. The Holodomor article talks about genocide, summarizing the contested topic, and the talk pages have some lively debates about whether or not it's a genocide and how things should be presented.