>I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. It was the partition that left people on the wrong side of the line, wasn't it? Kashmir has never been resolved, as you note. The number of people killed in sectarian violence in the late 1940 is estimated at over a million. And the Hindus and Muslims still hate each other, just with different national identities now. (And nukes). I would call that quite a mess.
>
>I didn't mean there were no good effects of the British Empire. There were. But overall I think we are better off without empires, period.

Whatever they may have done that had positive impact, they have more than handsomely profited on. And this combination of "divide et impera" combined with "apres moi, le deluge" that has cut India along pretty much arbitrary lines ranks among the slimiest dirty games of the XX century.