Yes, but the partition wasn't the Brits idea, just what the locals insisted on ( Jinnah wasn't about to play nice in a Hindu majority India ) There is reason to believe Lord Louis may have put his thumb on the scale in the Radcliffe awards in India's favor ( one of the reasons being his wife doing Nehru ) But with WWII over and nobody listening to Churchill anymore there was a lot of pressure to dismantle the empire and do it quickly. They were being pressed from all sides to let go of India.

The Hindus and Moslems may have very well killed each other by the 19th century if the Brits hadn't showed up in the first place. ( remember the whole Moghul thing and the Balkan-like fragmentation of the Indian principalities is what enabled a little island like England to divide and then unite and rule such a huge area and population with a max of fewer troops than we have in Iraq for almost 200 years and leave behind the largest democracy in history which has actually held up pretty well. And there is certainly an Anglo-Indian culture which thrives in both India and Britain. Not a bad record.

French colonialism was considerably more "slash and burn" Compare Indochine with India and Burma. ( though Burma/Myanmar is now the beneficiary of throwing off the colonial oppressor for a great socialist experiment which - mirabilie dictu - led to poverty, economic collapse and a represive regime that cannot be trusted to provide for the safety or welfare of what was the richest country in SE Asia )



>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.
>
>
>>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. 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.
>>
>>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.