In a weird turn of events, the Bombay High Court recently reduced the life sentence of Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari, a Muslim man convicted of raping a five-year-old girl, to just 12 years’ imprisonment. The court upheld his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, but significantly reduced the time of punishment, citing his conduct in jail. Among the factors considered were Ansari’s participation in educational programs and essay writing, as well as his engagement with Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy. While Mahatma Gandhi is widely celebrated as a towering advocate of non-violence, a lesser-discussed aspect of his legacy is his pronounced and sometimes controversial favoritism toward Muslims during the Indian freedom movement, Partition, and periods of communal unrest. Ansari’s association with Gandhian philosophy therefore may not surprise those familiar with this dimension of Gandhi’s persona.
Ansari assaulted his victim in December 2016, when the five-year-old girl had gone to a neighboring house. The Special POCSO Court found the child’s testimony credible and sentenced Ansari to life imprisonment. However, the High Court concluded that a 12-year sentence would suffice, taking into account the time already served and what it described as the convict’s reformative tendencies. The judgment noted that Ansari was 20 years old at the time of the offense and had no prior criminal record. So according to Indian judges, a 20-year-old Muslim man is too naive to know better than to rape, let alone a child?
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from the public. Reducing a life sentence in a case involving the sexual assault of a five-year-old sends a deeply troubling message relating to accountability for crimes against children. One is compelled to wonder whether writing essays or showing interest in philosophical ideas should meaningfully alter the consequences of such a heinous crime. There are concerns that this reasoning risks trivializing the trauma that the victim and her family endured. This ruling has exposed how Indian courts fail to protect children from sexual violence, especially when the convict is a Muslim.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) was enacted in 2012 to create a comprehensive legal framework to protect children below 18 from sexual abuse, exploitation, and pornography. The Act clearly defines offenses, including sexual harassment, sexual assault, penetrative sexual assault, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, while establishing child-friendly procedures for reporting crimes, recording evidence, and conducting trials through designated Special Courts. Over the years, amendments have strengthened its punitive provisions. Following changes in 2019, the Act now provides for enhanced minimum sentences and, in the most heinous cases, particularly aggravated penetrative sexual assault of children under 12, allows for the death penalty. Through these provisions, Parliament signaled its intent to treat sexual crimes against minors as among the gravest offenses under Indian criminal law.
Initially, Indians welcomed POCSO, hoping it would serve as a strong deterrent and instill fear of severe punishment, even death, in potential offenders. However, the reality has fallen short of expectations. Courts have repeatedly reduced sentences, even in cases where there was loss of life, citing factors that appear vague to the onlooker and almost establish that judges sympathize with offenders from the Muslim community more than the innocent and little victims who endured their monstrous behavior.
Mohd Firoz’s case is another example of these practices within the Indian judiciary. Firoz was convicted in April 2013 for the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl in Madhya Pradesh. Evidence, including the post-mortem report, showed that the child died from asphyxia after sexual assault. A Special Court sentenced him to death, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld that sentence. However, in April 2022, the Supreme Court of India commuted his death sentence to 20 years of imprisonment, holding that while the crime was heinous, it did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold required for capital punishment. In its reasoning, the bench cited reformative principles and quoted Oscar Wilde, noting that “every sinner has a future.” The victim’s mother appealed to the Supreme Court, poignantly stating that her toddler also had a future, which had been cruelly taken away, emphasizing that justice demanded the strictest punishment.
Similarly, in June 2024, the Orissa High Court commuted the death sentence of Sk. Asif Ali, convicted for the rape and murder of a six-year-old girl in Jagatsinghpur in August 2014, was sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld his conviction but cited mitigating factors, including his good conduct in jail and the fact that he was “offering Namaz (the Islamic prayer) many times in a day.” For the bench, these factors suggested surrender to Allah and reform, and concluded that life imprisonment would be a proportionate punishment.
While the intent of POCSO is to provide the strongest possible protection for minors, judicial practices in these cases have left citizens questioning whether Indian judges are serving justice for victims of sexual violence or safeguarding Islamist rapists through unconvincing excuses. In India, where many judges are perceived to come from a predominantly left-leaning mindset, their sympathetic alignment toward Muslim offenders is often seen as a given. However, such judgments often appear to betray the little children by the very justice system entrusted to protect them, projecting that judicial priorities are skewed more toward communal considerations than toward delivering justice to the victims.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
One day, if there is ever a Hindu revolution in India, everybody who thinks Gandhi was a good, let alone great, leader should be absolutely banned from having any say in its future. I recall Sanjay Dixit, on whose show “The Jaipur Dialogues” Robert has occasionally appeared, once say that if he had a time machine and could go back and kill off one historical figure, it would have been Mohandas Gandhi. He was absolutely right. Before Gandhi, Hindus never considered muslims as potential allies, regardless of what they thought about the Brits. It was Gandhi and Nehru who distorted opinion in India so badly that it took decades to recover
Similarly, Indian courts need to be purged: they are too influenced by both British tradition, and today, the Ivy League. In India, judges have been trying to get LGBTQ marriage recognized by the state, but individual states have pushed back, so that that sociopathic trend hasn’t caught fire. I understand the importance of institutions, but India needs to completely overhaul theirs, particularly their political and legal institutions, and de-Gandhiize them, as well as separate them completely from woke ideology that dominates all English speaking countries, at least in Academia
Peter Hammond says
That caught me off guard. I am sure ghandi had overwhelming support the whole time. And Nehru too was a beloved Indian leader, both were Hindus.
This is the first time I heard a bad word about ghandi. I mean these are two powerful Hindu Indian historical figures, who built India as far as I know. They made India strong and bested Pakistan, a wild nation. They made India a democracy.
I may have watched some documentaries and also learned in school about ghandi, not so much Nehru but I have an idea. This is really surprising viewpoint to hear. I’m curious why you think this. I’m a little shocked honestly. It’s like if Americans hated Washington or Adams… it’s not really “American” to think this, that is a leftist ideology.
Steven says
Have a read on the Noakhail massacre. Muslims up to their usual behaviour, pushing the limits of a tolerant host unlit they fully consume it, are met by Gandhi who stands down Hindus and they tells muslims “where in your Koran does it say you can do this” in his ignorance of a western foreign education. The muslims then proceeded to take further and drive with more vigour our the Hindus. Hence was the creation of the portions. The crowd may have even gone and double check and concluded, yep it says it right here, thanks Gandhi for reminding us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noakhali_riots
gravenimage says
There is more in Gandhi’s suicidal appeasement of Muslims. This has indeed been very harmful for India.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Peter
Nehru described himself as an “accidental Hindu” but a “cultural muslim”. Even more than Gandhi, he ingratiated himself w/ muslims. Neither of them were Hindus any more than, say, Sir Kier Starmer is Christian. Gandhi on one occasion during partition even tried reading a qur’an in a Hindu temple, and was kicked out by enraged Hindus
Most Indians also wouldn’t agree w/ your equating Nehru & Gandhi to Washington or Adams. Before Washington or Adams, there was no America, or any concept of it: it was mainly British, but also other Europeans coming to America and settling here, w/ no prior history in this land. Their history would have been European history
But India – as in the subcontinent – existed for several millennia, even predating Jewish, Ancient Egyptian/Babylonian/Greek/Roman civilizations. That is what Indians identify w/, even though that was interrupted by some 600 years of muslim rule followed by 150 years of British rule. But just like Israel traces its history back to Abraham, Isaac and what’s in the Old Testament, similarly India traces its history back to Manu and what’s there in the Puranas. Israel was at least lucky that David Ben Gurion didn’t love muslims more than Jews, the way Nehru loved muslims more than Hindus
Peter Hammond says
So how did they feel about Muslims politically? I mean, Muslims got their own countries Pakistan and Bangladesh, so why don’t they leave over there if they prefer sharia law?
Nehru and ghandi , what was the way they dealt with Muslims demanding things within India. I am also inferring that Indian Hindus were much more leftist in those days. Only this explains your facts.
It appears to be a mirror image of what we are seeing in Europe today with Islam and westerners, such as the British being taken over by Islam.
Steven says
your mention of Washington above while not directly related your query reminded me of the connection to US war for independence.
After British General Cornwallis surrender at Yorktown to George Washington he went back to England and then came to India where he led fight against the remaining ruling Islamic sultan Tipur and defeated him near town Mysore, retuning governance back to Hindu locals after several multiple hundred years occupation.
Of course Britain then stayed around a couple hundred years after that until Ghandi points mentioned above. Funny I often hear people from India things like the British looted India but way I see it they helped free India and take it back from the real looters, Islam.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Peter
Nehru & Gandhi were on a quest for the moral high ground, above anything else. They wanted – and succeeded – in making India secular in order to prove the “illogic” of Pakistan. To that end, they were willing to give mohammedans anything they wanted
One of the things Gandhi was planning to do – had he not been assassinated in January 1948 – was to go to Lahore and negotiate w/ Pakistan a connecting corridor from West to East Pakistan (today, Pakistan to Bangladesh). Given that weeks earlier, Gandhi had blackmailed the new Indian government into paying Pakistan 550 million rupees to resettle their refugees (w/o factoring what it cost India to resettle Hindus fleeing Pakistan) – it’s very likely that he’d have given them that, and in the process split India into 2 regions not contiguous w/ each other. Not to mention another bout of bloodletting by emptying out Hindu areas to accommodate mohammedans.
I normally don’t condone political violence, but based on my analysis of this and some subsequent events – like the Indian annexation of Hyderabad – I do believe that had Gandhi not been assassinated, some millions of more Hindus would have lost their lives. Nathuram Godse – his assassination – was a hero for saving India that carnage, even if it was by getting himself executed
Peter Hammond says
Very interesting. You also have to be fair, because Indian Muslims, maybe I am wrong, had all the leverage against India.
They could threaten to cut out mini parts of India into small islamic states if the early, weaker and undeveloped India did not accommodate them. I imagine Hindus wanted to keep as much of India as one contiguous state as they could. But Muslims kept this extra leverage on Hindus in the early stages.
Still, you have to give credit to because they did not let Kashmir leave India. So they did something and Hindus are still there till today. I imagine if it had left, other parts of Islamic India would have tried similar things, you would have had guerilla war, smuggling of weapons from the Islamic world. Total chaos.
These fears must have driven ghandi and Nehru. Just my opinion. Nehru also stood up to China if I am not wrong, he was in charge.
somehistory says
Rather than ‘life in prison,’ he should be whacked. The scum knew better than to rape a child….and if memory serves, ghandi was all about doing the same as this rapist.
The poor child. And all of the other children who may become victims of this demonic slug. The judges should have to suffer a similar fate as all of the little kids.
padiyo says
Sad day for a country when this happens, and the potential for this dirty pig to return to society to hurt more children. Every nation has to learn from China where now child sexual abuse is a capital offence. Just in the past week three men hae=ve been put to death for child sexual abuse there. The only possible way too protect children e
OLD GUY says
If you don’t want the death penalty at least cut their hardware off, so they can’t do it again. It also gives them something to remember for the rest of their lives. Which is only fair as that 5yr. old will never forget that attack.
Wellington says
Gandhi would be my choice for the single most overrated person of the 20th century. The man was a fool.
He thought women were superior to men because they couldn’t experience pleasure during sex. He was obsessed with bowel movements. As noted in the article, he made all kinds of excuses for Islam. And his so-called poverty was a sham. As one prominent Indian businessman replied when it was mentioned that Gandhi lived in a penurious state, his response was to the effect that it took a lot of money to keep Gandhi in poverty.
Worst of all, Gandhi was clueless about the British Empire, which let him get away with so much and was only too deferential to him. When Ho Chi Minh was reminded of Gandhi, he noted that Gandhi was very fortunate it was the British he opposed because the French, Portuguese, Spanish, et al. would have just shot him. What Gandhi really proves is the basic decency of the most decent (flawed but still the most decent) empire in history. Besides, Gandhi was so foolish as to opine that the reason why Hindus and Muslims hated each other was because the British fostered this. Hell, the British for centuries were the main reason why more Hindus and Muslims didn’t die and Britain’s exit from British India bitterly proved this point. You can keep Gandhi.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
In addition to what I wrote above, Gandhi was clueless about history, or else, he wouldn’t have missed the 150 million Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs who were massacred over an 800 year period before the Brits arrived. But even worse was his influence in normalizing how islam was viewed in India by a lot of Hindus. Before that, pretty much all Hindus looked at islam as a barbaric cult, and avoided muslims like the plague. It was Gandhi who moved to remove that stigma that was attached to muslims
Another thing: contrary to myth, he was not a Hindu, if one requires belief in Hindu scriptures as a part of being one
gravenimage says
Thanks, Infidel.
rick says
So Ghandi was a rapist also? Amazing.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
No, but he did sleep nude w/ his niece-in-law and his grand-daughter to test his resistance to temptation. He stopped when they made it clear that they didn’t like it, but it was very controversial even among his followers
somehistory says
When one researches laws, one finds that there are a lot of different descriptions for things done to children by adults seeking some manner of fulfillment.
“by contact” may mean full-on rape didn’t happen… or maybe it did.
“sleeping nude” with a child is a form of sexual assault….and who can actually verify he didn’t do more while the girls were asleep?
jerry glenn says
India surges in the international Islamopandering derby.
Brenrod says
India has lots of Muslims so perhaps the judges were Muslims. Was the victim a non Muslim?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
No, the judges are usually secular overlords who are above any religion, even if their family origins may be Hindu, Parsi, Christian, whatever
Steven says
“Government Work Is Gods Work”. This rare the words above the main City Hall court house in most popular city of Bangalore for western companies. Fits in with what your saying here.
gravenimage says
India: Court Reduces Punishment of Muslim Rapist of a Minor Because He Thinks Like Gandhi
………………………………………………………………………
I have my issues with Gandhi, for the reasons cited above–but the implication that this Muslim thug raping a 5-year-old child was “thinking like Gandhi” is an insult to Gandhi–he never preached this, This is orthodox Islam that Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari was practicing.
I presume he will be released now with time served. He is only 30 now so he has decades of raping children to look forward to.
gravenimage says
A similar story, from a year and a half ago:
“India: Muslim who pleaded guilty to jihad terror funding now claims he embraced ‘Gandhian ways’”
https://jihadwatch.org/2024/10/india-muslim-who-pleaded-guilty-to-jihad-terror-funding-now-claims-he-embraced-gandhian-ways