But Goa wasn't part of India so what right did India have to invade it?
Have they apologised for the Indian mutiny yet?
You mean they had it to begin with?
Ask people in Bangladesh if they'd like to go back to being part of Pakistan. Would you excuse a Chinese invasion of Taiwan on the basis that in the long run it might benefit them economically even if they end up with a PLA boot on their throat?
Perhaps you would support the forcible annexation of Ireland since in the long run it must make way more sense for them to be part of a bigger English speaking union!
Haha, you really want to go back to the 18th century, dont you?
- Goa is in India, inhabited by Indians and was governed by Indians for millennia prior to the Portugese annexing it, and you're claiming Goa isn't part of India. If that's the logic we're playing with, I'm surprised Britain still talks to America, considering they stole many cities and territories the British owned.
- The Indian mutiny didn't occur in a vacuum. It occurred in the context of blatant racism and oppression. I'm quite happy to criticize both sides conduct, including the sepoys, but I fail to see how it is comparable to a group of racist oppressors opening fire on innocent civilians protesting said oppressive and racist behaviour. And then lauding themselves for doing it. English morality at its finest. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, eh?
- Did religious pluralism ever exist in India? Let's see. Birthplace of 3-4 major religions (Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism). Home to Zoroastrian religious refugees for millennia (you may know one of them as the owner of JLR). Third largest Muslim population in the world. A separate law board to accomidste a minority religion. Complete constitutional protection for all religions. Nope, religious pluralism never existed in India.
- I think you missed the bit about India and the US being democracies with, you know, standard democratic traits like equal rights and constitutional protections against discrimination. Bangladesh seceded from a military dictatorship that discriminated against Bengalis on the basis of race after it refused to respect their democratic rights.
Your other two examples literally involve invading countries that are unanimously (ie -significantly over 52%) opposed to being invaded. If it helps, I don't support the EU launching an armed invasion of the UK either. Not sure how you think those examples are comparable or relevant here. I will say that if Ireland chose to join the EU, it would benefit more. Oh wait, it already has.
In any event, the whole English-speaking union thing was amusing. They're doing even better in a multilingual union that doesn't discriminate against any of its member nationalities or forcibly annex them. But I accept that etho-nationalist brains that are fixated on defining nations by language and race might have a hard time comprehending that.
Ah, the insight into the Brexit brain. Priceless.