It's curbing freedom of speech just as much if it is a security measure. The pretext, however valid it might be, doesn't alter the essential character of the act. Of course, calling a location “terrorist, separatist, and rebel” because there happen to be terrorists, separatists, and/or rebels in it, and using that to justify suppressive policy targeting the region as a whole is a sure sign of the mindset of—even if the suppressive policies don't yet reach the level of—collective punishment, a war crime in the context of interstate war and a crime against humanity otherwise.
I don't think the Government seeks to make this a lockdown permanent and felicitate any kind of suppression. There's a provision for government the and the place can continue to have it's own powers, just that it can't become bigger than the country itself, which had become the norm.
The context does justify certain restraining measures. What sort of argument is it that claims if you're wrapping someone in a blanket in the summer, it's a crime, not looking at the fact that the person is burning? You have to take certain measures till the situation calms down and people come to the level of responding instead of reacting. If this becomes a constant thing like for years or decades like the two bills had become, then yes, I see your concern. A temporal restrain cannot be exaggerated to "war crimes".
> Lockdown in a terrorist, separatist and rebel location is a security measure more than a curbing of Freedom of speech
This is harsh. One could equally argue that the Hindustani and Pakistani governments are terrorizing the Kashmir valley, with their security measures and counter-measures. There's more to this issue than misplaced nationalism with countless layers and nuances, though, I agree it is in India's interest to deal with the Kashmir dispute in a way it sees fit and call it a day, since the agreed plebiscite isn't acceptable to it, at all.
Thus, desperate times, desperate situations, desperate measures. If you feel it is harsh, I prompt you to consider the case when separatists would use the means to spread rumours, fake news and instigate mobs. We know that they are capable of that and the scrapping of these bills signifies essentially a stop to their powers. Better to nip it in the bud than starting violent protests which need more physical force to keep the law and order intact.
This is bullshit. Even the Home Ministry has walked back from the There were no protests line. Source: https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/08/14/the-truth-about-bbc-a...
Also the other protest accepted by India could be a different one altogether, hence pictured differently and was possibly an actual one which happened days after BBC released their video.
Lockdown in a terrorist, separatist and rebel location is a security measure more than a curbing of Freedom of speech. The region has been constitutionally provided for a democratic government, despite the split. This piece of information somehow passes through the crevices of fractured media into oblivion. China and Pakistan's stance is understandable since it is also a measure to tackle the Roadway China has been building through Pakistan to reach the ports and open up its trade routes. All of this with a funding of terrorism and extremism.