Objectively wrong, there’s no evidence of ongoing British invasion of India.

The claim is that the UK once invaded and subjugated India, recently enough to matter. Not that India is presently in that state.

The analogy works when the owner of the foreign media also is waging a war against you or your allies. Just because some time in the past you had a military conflict doesn’t make it the same thing because something happened in the past doesn’t have immediate and irreversible effects. Since there are no immediate risks, you get the chance to respond and correct and that’s why you can have free media.

Besides, everyone was once invaded by the British.

What you're saying is that you, subjectively, think that the UK's past invasion of India isn't relevant because it was long ago and not ongoing (and because the UK did this to lots of people, that makes it a lesser crime?) And I'm saying that quite a lot of people don't agree with your subjective judgement.

Objectively, the facts are that the UK once invaded India and some Indians alive today personally experienced that subjugation. But what any of that means or implies is subjective.

No, Objectively UK's past invasion of India doesn't create a cause for British media to pose immediate and irreversible risks to India.

This doesn't mean that Indians shouldn't be cautious but gives them an opportunity for healthy debate thanks to input from outside. Because there's no immediate and irreversible dangers, they can counter the British arguments or get something from it to make their own position better.

That’s not the invasion they have a chip on their shoulder about

There are a lot of people today in India subjugated by Indians as well.