A battle rages on in Kashmir, with no end in sight. It is a land cursed by its very location – cruelly sandwiched between three nuclear states: India, Pakistan, and China. Their political tug-of-war of greater powers has torn apart the Kashmir region, and its people.

The centerpiece of the conflict is a territorial clash over the northwestern-most area of the Indian subcontinent. In 1947, when British rule of India came to an end, the partition of land created two new nations – India and Pakistan. This partition is widely believed to be at the root of the Kashmir conflict. Although claiming, as the BBC article Partitioning India Over Lunch in 2007 did, that only a few influential people decided the fate of millions over a meal may appear excessive, it is not mere hyperbole. The British, drained of their resources after World War II and apprehensive about the freedom movements swelling in their colonies, were in a hurry to leave and created a severely problematic demarcation of a sensitive area – a decision at once careless and cavalier. Both India and Pakistan laid claims on Kashmir, which straddles the demarcation line. It was clearly sought after because of its ideal climatic conditions, sound agriculture, and healthy tourism economy. Moreover, the Kashmiri area incorporated into India had a predominantly Muslim population but a Hindu ruler, and this added more fuel to the political agitation. Since then, radical Islamist elements that believe Muslim majority areas automatically belong to Pakistan – a nation created in the name of Islam – have been active.

Astonishingly, aside from those directly involved or affected, the majority of the public does not realize the catastrophic nature of the conflict. Major Western newspapers often do not publish articles focused on Kashmir for weeks, whereas ‘peace in the Middle East’ is covered on a daily basis. Political Science major Jenny Castellana, a sophomore at the University and a regular reader of the New York Times, says she was shocked to learn of the excessive violence and human rights violations in Kashmir.

“One would think that World History or Globalization classes in high school would at least touch upon this issue,” she said. “Yet, we never covered it at all. Not once. The Western media hardly ever portrays it as a significant crisis”.

This lack of knowledge and the apparent censorship of the media seems troubling to Jenny:

“I definitely think that a conflict such as this needs to be addressed properly. If we are to be responsible world citizens, we have to know of world issues.”

As of now, the chances for a definite resolution appear slim. The Line of Control, the military-enforced border between Indian controlled territory and Pakistani controlled territory is still not a legally recognized international boundary. In many ways, it mirrors the unstable, volatile nature of the Kashmir state as a whole: a game reminiscent of the Devil’s Arithmetic, where numbers of how many ‘militants’ are caught crossing over keep fluctuating while brutalities keep increasing.

One fact is tremendously disconcerting: with the passage of time, even the residents of India and Pakistan are entering a numb state, where news of everyday atrocities seems less and less noteworthy. Bollywood depictions often lighten the intensity of the issue, for although they attempt to highlight terrorism, love stories frequently mesh with the plot and steal the spotlight. Films like Roja, LOC: Kargil, and Fanaa (to name a few) have emphasized the growing militancy in the area, but do not explore the historical context of the conflict. The result is a distortion of the history and the culture. Most filmmakers are interested in depicting Kashmir as the land of picturesque gardens, lakes and beautiful women, a land where the patriotic Hindu hero is able to marry the Muslim girl. However, the stark truth is this: this is a region where 11.6% women suffer from sexual abuse, one of the highest rates in the world, and where the Armed Forces, the protectors of the people, are feared more than revered.

Something has to be done. In an ideal world, the Kashmiri would be taken into account and India and Pakistan would reach a full and final decision. Yet, six decades of fighting have proved that we do not live in an ideal world. Despite countless resolutions, the people of Kashmir remain uncertain of their fate. Although US intervention has more often created problems rather than resolving them, is this one case where an active, powerful mediator like America is required? In spite of advice against it, and even a few threats, Barack Obama has expressed an interest in resolving this issue once and for all. How he plans to go about it remains unclear, but many are rooting for a politically binding treaty.

This issue may not have escalated to the degree of the Israel-Palestine conflict (as yet), nor does it hold any symbolic connotations that generate wide religious appeal, but the Kashmir conflict is very real, and challenges the world to take action in the name of humanity.

Mr. Hilal-ud-din Siddiqi, a ninety-year-old Pakistani citizen who fought in the wars of 1947 and 1965 against India, correctly points out: “It is ridiculous how long this issue has been stretched. We thought we were fighting for a solution, an ending to this problem, and now it seems like we all [Pakistanis and Indians] fought in vain”. Dejectedly, he adds, “It is a matter of the Kashmiri people, and yet they are the last ones who are being taken into account. Can they govern themselves? Are they ready for that? I don’t know. Yet, do we have a right to leave them crushed between hostile nations? Certainly not.”