They can only make strict rules and regulations about Bitcoin. They say they will ban Bitcoin but not bitcoin directly. They are able to ban centarlized platforms for exchanging Bitcoin, but they are not able to ban decentralized exchangers for Bitcoin moreover the P2P. They may be able to make certain regulations, but in fact, Bitcoin is unstoppable, even if there is a rule, there are still many people in your country using this, investing in Bitcoin, and having trust in Bitcoin. Let it be, let them say so, but they actually can't.

They can ban establishments that will accept bitcoin or have a relation to their business and bitcoin. That's all they can do but to ban bitcoin and its entirety, they have no means of doing that.
And even if they ban it, everyone will still be able to access it no matter how hard they try, still, there will be citizens that will access bitcoin wallets and bitcoin websites even if they execute an entire ban on their country.

This is where Bitcoin do get its main support and recognition on which there's no way for Government to stop it technically or simply speaking about its operation completely.They might able to take some action

into those businesses or platforms which are attached to Bitcoin or crypto as a whole but its not something enough on completely eradicating Bitcoin into its existence.As long there would be
people and there would be someone who do make out these transactions or simply having the demand then it couldnt die.

Some had already surrendered on looking for ways and methods but they do fail but rather they do go into the opposite side which it to accept or adopt but most of the current government
are still in neutral phase.

it's true too,, your words,, I forgot about the internet. but of course if the government does not agree with its people to invest in bitcoin, surely it will hinder people who invest in bitcoin. even though they can invest in bitcoin but, it will not be as free as what is permitted by the government.

At various times, the Indian government has been making various policies on cryptocurrencies i.e. Bitcoin, but they have not been able to come to any proper decision yet.  The Indian government was supposed to formulate a policy on Bitcoin from 2019 and the Indian Finance Team was supposed to meet with G20 members to develop a valid policy and tax system but they failed to do so.

Indian Central Bank, Reserve Bank of India has said that if Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are not banned, there will be a major crisis in this sector later and the government will have to pay the price.

Due to the negative reviews from various departments and considering the overall status of Bitcoin, the Indian government has informed that they are going to organize an awareness campaign on Bitcoin very soon.  The campaign will include awareness advice on investors, risky investments in Bitcoins and cryptocurrencies, over-investing, and various scam activities.

---

News: https://news.bitcoin.com/indian-government-launching-crypto-awareness-campaign/

No government can single handedly stop bitcoin, because that government doesn't have the control over bitcoin and as such you can't ban something you don't have control of, you can only stop or ban something under your control.
But if the government of the all the nations come together in agreement of banning bitcoin then I believe they can ban it, because they will shut bitcoin out of the internet in their various countries.

If all countries were to ban BTC and its usage, then it will slowly become obsolete and no one would actually use it. There would be no trading aspect as persons would be liable if they transact using BTC. In addition, they would also be penalized by their respective government given that exchanges require KYC in order to transact using it. This will now definitely ruin the chances of BTC being globally accepted and used as a form of alternative currency without the need of any third-party consensus.

While that may be the case, I really doubt that it will happen. There are various countries who see the potential of its usage and its impact on the economy (e.g. Japan, etc.). While there may be countries who prohibit the use of such, there are still countries who continue to develop and adapt BTC to its economy and finances.

To ban bitcoin seems like a difficult thing to do because if it were possible maybe today we will see the bitcoin market collapse, I think it is impossible that all countries (globally) will have the same vision to ban bitcoin because after all some countries actually see bitcoin as an alternative which is indeed better in terms of investment, even if India bans bitcoin, of course I don't think it will affect the bitcoin market too much because so far the Indian country has not had too much of a big influence on world finance or the economy, not like China or America.

I think LoyceV is right that it would have happened by now if they could ban it, but I'd also add 'if they wanted to ban it'. Authoritarian-leaning regimes can have more control over the legislation and introduce very restrictive measures without much backlash. So Bitcoin can be easily banned in a significant part of the world which is not democratic. In democracies, it's much trickier, as there are mechanisms like protests and lobbying to ensure that people have as many freedoms as they can have without it being a major threat to national security or to safety of the population itself. So I don't think that a full ban is possible in a huge democratic chunk of the world. If there's a combo of high crypto interest and strong democracy, it's not going to work.

"No one" seems a little extreme.  Software piracy, music piracy, TV and movie piracy, or copyright infringement in general are all considered illegal in just about every part of the world.  And loads of people still do that.  Certain drugs are also banned in most places, however some people still chose to take them recreationally.  Bans aren't as effective as most people assume.

Banning Bitcoin would simply drive usage underground and make it more difficult for authorities to surveil and monitor.  Fewer people would use it, sure.  But still enough to maintain network effects and utility.