AT 5.30AM (12am GMT) last Friday (20), four men – Mukesh Kumar Singh, 32; Akshay Kumar Singh, 30; Vinay Sharma, 26; and Pawan Gupta, 25 – were “hanged simultaneously” in Tihar Jail in Delhi.
They were put to death for the gang rape on December 16, 2012, of a 23-year-old medical student who died of her extensive injuries a fortnight later in a Singapore hospital.
Afterwards, the bodies were kept hanging for half an hour as stipulated by the jail manual. Before going to the gallows, Vinay and Mukesh “had roti, dal, rice and sabzi for dinner and Akshay only tea in the evening”, an official revealed.
India hasn’t abolished the death penalty, but it is imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases. This was considered one, given the horrific way in which five men and a 17-year-old – the latter was released after three years while Ram Singh, 34, apparently committed suicide in prison – took it in turn to brutalise their victim inside a moving bus before tossing out her bruised body along with her beaten male friend.
The victim was given the pseudonym Nirbhaya – “the fearless one”.
One commentator, Namita Bhandare, argued: “Indian law does not permit the naming of rape victims. Presumably this is because the crime of rape is so terrible that, in society’s eyes, it stains not the rapist, but his victim with shame; a shame so indelible that her honour and that of her family is irretrievably lost.
“The hangman’s noose was, despite the delays, an inevitable destination for the four convicts. The question to ask now is what really changes for India’s women? That answer is depressingly brief. Nothing. But for now, to honour the one who died, we could begin by reclaiming her identity and calling her by her name.”
Surely, she has a point.
The BBC’s Gita Pandey pondered: “Has India become safer for women? A short answer to that question would be: No. And that’s because despite the increased scrutiny of crimes against women since December 2012, similar violent incidents have continued to make headlines in India. And statistics tell only a part of the story – campaigners say thousands of rapes and cases of sexual assault are not even reported to the police.”
Punishment for sex crimes has been toughened in India, but appear to have done nothing to reduce attacks against women. Quite the reverse, in fact. The National Crime Records Bureau reports that 378,000 cases of crimes against women were recorded across India in 2018 compared to 359,000 in 2017 and 338,000 in 2016. Rape in 2018 totalled 33,356.
The executions were condemned by Amnesty International India as a “dark stain” on India’s human rights record, but were otherwise widely welcomed. The victim’s mother, Asha Devi, said: “Justice was delayed but has been delivered finally. I hugged the photo of my daughter and said, ‘Today you got justice.’”
Prime minister Narendra Modi tweeted: “Justice has prevailed. It is of utmost importance to ensure dignity and safety of women.”
There were approving responses from many Bollywood personalities. For example, Preity Zinta said: “I wish it would have been faster but I’m happy it’s over. If Nirbhaya rapists were hung in 2012, the judicial system would have stopped so much crime against women. Fear of the law would have kept the lawless in check. Prevention is always better than cure.”
In Britain, the home secretary Priti Patel has been taken to task for remarks she made on the BBC’s Question Time in 2011, but in India, no one would have quibbled.
Patel had said: “I do actually think when we have a criminal justice system that continuously fails in this country, and where we have seen murderers, rapists and people who have committed the most abhorrent crimes in society, go into prison and then are released from prison to go out into the community to then re-offend and do the types of crime they have committed again and again. I think that’s appalling. And actually on that basis alone, I would actually support the reintroduction of capital punishment to serve as a deterrent.”
Recently, she insisted: “I have never said I’m an active supporter of it and (what I said) is constantly taken out of context.”
India is different. As soon as the jail authorities confirmed the hangings, many in the crowd outside began clapping and chanting Vande mataram and Bharat Mata ki jai.
Although the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1969, multiple or fatal gang rapes in this country are relatively rare. They remain far too common in India, with no solution in sight.
US president Donald Trump gestures next to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion International Airport as Trump leaves Israel en route to Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, to attend a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a US-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Lod, Israel, October 13, 2025.
‘They make a desert and call it peace’, wrote the Roman historian Tacitus. That was an early exercise, back in AD 96, of trying to walk in somebody else’s shoes. The historian was himself the son-in-law of the Roman Governor of Britain, yet he here imagined the rousing speech of a Caledonian chieftain to give voice to the opposition to that imperial conquest.
Nearly two thousand years later, US president Donald Trump this week headed to Sharm-El-Sheikh in the desert, to join the Egyptian, Turkish and Qatari mediators of the Gaza ceasefire. Twenty more world leaders, including prime minister Sir Keir Starmer and president Emmanuel Macron of France turned up too to witness this ceremonial declaration of peace in Gaza.
This ceasefire brings relief after two years of devastating pain. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. More of the Israeli hostages taken by Hamas are returning dead than alive. Eighty-five per cent of Gaza is rubble. Each of the twenty steps of the proposed peace plan may prove rocky. The state of Palestine has more recognition - in principle - than ever before across the international community, but it may be a long road to that taking practical form. Israel continues to oppose a Palestinian state.
The ceasefire will be welcomed in Britain for humanitarian relief and rekindling hopes of a path to a political settlement. It offers an opportunity to take stock on the fissures of the last two years on community relations here in Britain too. That was the theme of a powerful cross-faith conversation last week, convened by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, to reciprocate the expressions of solidarity received from Muslims, Christians and others after the Manchester synagogue attacks, and challenge the arson attack on a Sussex mosque.
Jewish and Muslim civic voices had convened an ‘optimistic alliance’ to keep conversations going when there seemed ever less to be optimistic about. The emerging news from Gaza was seen as a hopeful basis to deepen conversation in Britain about how tackling the causes of both antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice could form part of a shared commitment to cohesion.
This conflict has not seen a Brexit-style polarisation down the middle of British society. Most people’s first instinct was to avoid choosing a side in this conflict. The murderous Hamas attack on Jews on October 7, 2023 and the excesses of the Israeli assault on Gaza piled tragedy upon tragedy. The instinct to not take sides can be an expression of mutual empathy, but is not always so noble. It can reflect confusion and exhaustion with this seemingly intractable conflict. A tendency to look away and change the subject can frustrate those whose family heritage, faith solidarity or commitments to Zionism and Palestine as political ideas make them feel more closely connected.
Others have felt this conflict thrust upon them in an unwelcome way - including British Jews fed up with the antisemitic idea that they can be held responsible at school, university or work for what the government of Israel is doing. Protesters for Palestine perceive double standards in arguments about free speech - as do those with contrasting views. The proper boundaries between legitimate political protest and prejudice are sharply contested.
Hamit Coksun is an asylum seeker who speaks somewhat broken English. He would seem an unusual ally for Robert Jenrick. Yet the shadow justice secretary went to court to offer solidarity, after Coskun had burned a Qu’ran outside the Turkish Embassy, while shouting “F__ Islam” and “Islam is the religion of terrorism”. He had been fined £250, but the appeal court overturned his conviction. The judgment was context-specific: this specific incendiary protest took place outside an embassy, not a place of worship, in an empty street, and did not direct the comments at anybody in particular.
The law does not protect faiths from criticism, and indeed offers some protection for intolerant and prejudiced political speech too, though the police can place conditions on protest to protect people from abuse, intimidation or harassment on the basis of their faith.
So it can be legal to performatively burn books - holy or otherwise - though this verdict makes clear it does not offer a green light to do so in every context.
But how far should we celebrate those who choose to burn books? Cosun advocates banning the Qu’ran, making him a flawed champion of free speech. Jenrick is legitimately concerned to show that there are no laws against blasphemy in Britain, but could anybody imagine that he would turn up in person to show solidarity to a man burning the Bible, Bhagvad Gita or Torah, shouting profanities to declaring religion of war or genocide? The court’s defence of the right to shock, offend and provoke is correct in law. Those are hardly the only conversations that a shared society needs.
Sunder Katwalawww.easterneye.biz
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.