[JoesBro]

Perhaps one other comment, remember that Britain had just spent 5 years in a global conflict, much of the national (and commonwealth treasure) had been expended, and they had no resources for the indigenous population let alone colonies and protecterates around the world. Faced with cries for independence, whether right or wrong, they granted it and went home. Some of these new nations never looked back but others descended into various levels of chaos.

Absolutely -however, there was the idea in certain quarters that Britain would retain its colonies and it would be "business as usual" -whatever the cost. But the election of a post-war Labour government scuppered this completely. As for those "no resources"- tell me about it ! I still have my ration book and one of my earliest memories is my mother and I sharing a large room with another family in 1948/9 post-war London.
Never the less, Britain had obligations to all its colonies it failed to fulfill -mainly because of political doctrine rather than lack of resources (lets get out as quickly as possible and cease being seen by the rest of the world as oppressors).

This policy often caused great suffering -a classic example being India -where the British were well aware of the tensions between Muslims and Hindus and had in the past exploited such when necessary to retain control.