>But is wasn't the partitioning that was the problem, it was that you had people on the wrong side of the line at the end ( and the issue of disputed territory - Kashmir and some of Punjab - that was never really settled.) Think Yugoslavia or Iraq, I guess.
>
>Besides - this was not the problem of Empire but of the dissolution of Empire.

Ecco!

>True of a great deal of the post_colonial era. The Congo was certainly a hell-hole under the Belgians but it didn't exactly evolve to paradise on earth.
>
>South Africa was a bad place to be black under apartheid and Rhodesia was another example of minority tribe rule being problematic. But black minority tribe rule has had the same - and in most cases much more bloody - results.

Yet these 2 countries thrived under the Brits, Rhodesia has descended into a basket case hell-on-Earth. I'll wager Ian Smith is spinning in his grave wishing he hadn't declared UDI all those years ago.

>
>Rwanda would have benefitted nicely from a stern colonial administration in the 90s - even if it were French.
>
>The parts of India and Pakistan ( and the US ) that are most hopeful are often the legacy of the Brits.
>
>They bungled a lot, muddled through a lot, but did a better job of it than any other civilization ever has and left an imprint more positive than negative. They also managed to rule a quarter of the population of the earth and they did more through guile than guns. ( oddly, the boneheaded bungling that lost them the American Colonies was probably one of the low points )
>
>>>I think historic credentials are quite sufficient that England never be put in the column marked "cheese eating surrender monkeys" <g>
>>>
>>>I do think we have a great deal to learn from our cousins about running an empire without making too much of a mess.
>>>
>>
>>Ahem. Read anything about the partitioning of India? (I'm sure you have).
>>
>>Whenever I am tempted by the appeal of splitting Iraq up along religious lines, I think of that example.