Good to know your point of view. Now a few points for you.
1. If you think it is wrong to meddle in others' matters then by that logic it is none of your business what India does with Goa or Hyderabad or Sikkim. It is in our interest, for the sake of greater good and things have played out well to confirm that it was a right course of action. We executed our plans successfully there.
Slight defect -- before you annexed them they were not internal India
Further my point was -- what is good for India might possibly be good for Pakistan?
2. Does Pakistan do the same ? It tries the same thing with Kashmir, which has been a failure so far. It tried the same thing with Afghanistan, in fact Pakistan was among the first country to recognize Taliban govt. But that has been a failure too. So, I don't really get the idea of how exactly you are trying to get the moral high ground here. It's just the fact that India has been successful while Pakistan not.
If Pakistan had the capability to do it any better it would have done that already.
Well the answer is in your statement -- so far ... so if tomorrow it was a success it would OK?
The future is always in motion: said Yoda?
So India was a failure in the 1950s -- maybe Pakistan will succeed in 2050?
success is only transient -- Indians were snake charmers in the 1950 (according to your Union Minister) now they are leaders in the computing revolution
The history of Pakistan does not start with 1947 nor does it end with the recognition of the Taliban government.
Nations fall, nations stand, nations fall again, they stand again
India -- the erstwhile India has been split into three nations Pakistan, Bangladesh and India -- how is that success?
And 2 out of the 3 nations are hostile to India.
The Indian civilization is confined to one landmass -- Chinese, Caucasians, Muslims? -- low bar for success
Morality is very important to me -- may not be to you
my point is that just like british in afghanistan.. british raj was also in balugustan but have a high resistance from the indigenous population.
so 1957 was not high resistance? and then what?