In September, UK’s Opposition Labour Party passed an emergency motion on Kashmir calling for party leader Jeremy Corbyn to seek international observers to “enter” the region and demand the right of self-determination for its people, drawing criticism from the Indian diaspora representatives who described it as “ill conceived” and “misinformed”. The Britain Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has refused to be bullied by the Indian government over his unequivocal support for the oppressed people of Kashmir in the wake of revocation of Article 370 by Narendra Modi’s government and an organized campaign using over 100 British Indian community organisations to bully the Labour Party. Corbyn has pledged that his party will remain committed to ensuring that the rights of all citizens of Kashmir are “respected and upheld”. For the readers of history, it remains not a surprising fact that Kashmiris faced gross injustice at the part of UK’sLabourParty in 1947–leaving Kashmir as an incomplete agenda of the partition of subcontinent. It is a good omen that the British Labour Party (once the spoiler of the just partition of the Subcontinent under premier Atlee) is now committed to addressing the humanitarian issues in the Indian held Kashmir (IHK). It is high time for the future leadership in Britain to settle the old accounts of its unjust role-vis-à-vis the incomplete partition of Subcontinent. Yet shamefully, Modi’s BJP lashed out at the Congress over its “shameful shenanigans” and demanded an explanation after UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said he discussed the human rights situation in Kashmir with “UK representatives from the Indian Congress Party”. Truly, history throws the light that it was none but Clement Richard Atlee, the British Prime Minister (1945-51) the then leader of the Labour Party in the UK under whose administration the partition of Subcontinent ( divide et impera) was conducted.The British scholar Yasmin Khan, in her acclaimed history “The Great Partition, discerns that Partition stands testament to the follies of empire, which ruptures community evolution, distorts historical trajectories and forces violent state formation from societies that would otherwise have taken different-and unknowable-paths”. Unfortunately, in a very hurried manner, the British administration decided to bring forward their departure from India by a year. In June 1947– vindicated by Viceroy Mountbatten’s broadcasts a rushed and incoherent partition plan to Indians, announcing that British withdrawal and the division of the country was to take place in just 2 months. The stemming social ruptures and atrocities that accompany the unfolding of this time-compressed partition plan, particularly along the partitioned borderlands of Punjab and Bengal, especially the princely state Kashmir and the dubious document of the accession of Kashmir to India profoundly ensure that the new nation-states of India and Pakistan were born with profound mutual distrust and enmity. It is a good omen that the British Labour Party (once the spoiler of the just partition of the Subcontinent under premier Atlee) is now committed to addressing the humanitarian issues in the Indian held Kashmir (IHK). It is high time for the future leadership in Britain to settle the old accounts of its unjust role-vis-à-vis the incomplete partition of Subcontinent The ‘Princely States of India’, not directly ruled by the British, were given a choice of which country to join. Those states whose princes failed to join either country or chose a country at odds with their majority religion, such as Kashmir and Hyderabad, became the focus of bitter dispute. The Kashmir issue still remains unsolved and is the cause of much tension on the subcontinent today. There were many “princely states” that had the option of remaining independent or to accede to one of the newly independent nations. Jammu and Kashmir was one such princely state. Its geopolitical location and the fact that it was a Muslim-majority state made it logical for the state to choose to join Pakistan. And ironically, a British lawyer, in 1947, Cyril Radcliffe was tasked with drawing the border between India and the newly created state of Pakistan over the course of a single lunch. It goes without saying that had the Labour Party’s lastappointed viceroy to India, Lord Mountbatten not endorsed the divisive Radcliff award -a brainchild of British imperialism in the sub-continent, there would have been no such irony of injustice being done to the dominant Muslim majority population in Kashmir. Given its geopolitical location and the fact that Kashmir was a Muslim-majority state made it logical for the state to choose to join Pakistan. But Maharaja Hari Singh agreed and signed the Instrument of Accession, the document that aligned Kashmir with the Dominion of India, in October 1947. Kashmir was later given special status within the Indian constitution-a status which guaranteed that Kashmir would have independence over everything but communications, foreign affairs, and defence. The Maharaja’s fateful decision to align Kashmir with India ushered in decades of conflict in the contested region, including two wars and a longstanding insurgency. Which other state has only been able to have state governments that are client regimes of New Delhi? Which other states of India has mass graves where thousands of custodial killing victims are buried – without a massive outcry in the media and Parliament? Needless to say, the Kashmir conflict is the end result of continuous neglect, discrimination, suppression of Kashmiri indentations-causing heavy defence expenditures and ineffectiveness of regional cooperation in South Asia. Understandably , Indo-Pak tension over Kashmir reached new levels after the abrogation of Article 370 (and Article 35A) which represented the tattered symbols of the promise of Kashmir’s autonomy, now thatconstitutional fig leaf is gone. What remains is open, brutal military control over the Kashmiri people. Kashmir’s lockdown– since August 5, following the revocation of Article 370– directly affects peace and stability of the South Asian subcontinent. The region contains a large segment of the human race. The dispute reaped three wars and the possibility of a fourth war- – probably a nuclear holocaust is looming large. The major contenders of the dispute are Pakistan, India and Kashmiris. UK’s former Representative to the UN and National Security Adviser (NSA) to two premiers, Mark Lyall Grant has warned that the international community has a vital interest in resolving the Kashmir crisis or play a big price otherwise in the future. He shares his views in the Forbes: “After 72 years of bitter dispute, punctuated by 3 wars and many skirmishes between India and Pakistan (both now nuclear weapon powers), innumerable acts of terrorism and rising human rights abuses, the time has come for a serious effort to resolve the half-forgotten Kashmir crisis. The international community, led by the US and UK, needs to play a role in this effort.” Given the past English legacy of not judiciously deciding the Kashmir issue,should not the Labour Party’s lawmakers be pragmatically concerned aboutsettling the old accounts of injusticethat was committed towards Kashmiris during thepartition of sub-continent? The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan