No Place to Die: The Chhatisgarh Burial Saga

For what will very soon be two whole weeks, the body of a former pastor has been lying in a morgue in Chhatisgarh, unable to find a burial place. The reason- communal tensions.

The Supreme Court on Monday heard the case of Ramesh Baghel, a Christian man from Chhindawada village in Chhattisgarh, who has been unable to bury his father, a pastor, due to local opposition. The case arose after Baghel’s father passed away on January 7, and the family sought to conduct the burial within the village graveyard. However, some villagers vehemently objected, threatening violence and preventing the family from proceeding with the burial.

The Chhattisgarh High Court had previously dismissed Baghel’s plea, citing potential law and order issues and suggesting that a burial ground for Christians was available 20-25 kilometres away in a different village. This decision prompted Baghel to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, which expressed concern over the prolonged delay in burying the deceased, who has remained in a mortuary for nearly two weeks now.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, criticised the inaction of local authorities and the High Court, questioning why a person who has lived in a village cannot be buried there. The case highlights broader issues of religious rights, community tensions, and the legal complexities surrounding burial practices, particularly for minority communities. The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings to address the matter, emphasising the need for a resolution that respects the deceased’s dignity and the family’s wishes.

Jargon

Viewpoints 💭

  • The left views the denial of burial rights as a clear case of religious discrimination against Christians, emphasising the need for secularism and equal treatment of all religious communities.
  • They argue that the refusal to allow burial in the village graveyard is an attempt to marginalise Christians and undermine secular traditions.
  • The left criticises the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision as lacking empathy and failing to uphold the dignity of the deceased, highlighting the need for judicial independence.
  • They emphasise the importance of protecting minority rights and ensuring that religious practices are respected, advocating for a more inclusive approach to burial practices.
  • The left views the situation as indicative of broader communal tensions and the need for policies that promote religious pluralism and social harmony.
  • The left criticises the denial of burial rights as religious discrimination, while the right emphasises the need for communal harmony and adherence to statutory rules.
  • While the left advocates for secularism and equal treatment of all religious communities, the right prioritises maintaining social cohesion and preventing unrest.
  • The left views the situation as indicative of broader communal tensions and the need for policies promoting religious pluralism, whereas the right sees it as a matter of upholding local customs and traditions.
  • The left emphasises the importance of protecting minority rights and ensuring religious practices are respected, while the right supports a pragmatic approach that prioritises law and order.
  • The left criticises the High Court’s decision as lacking empathy and judicial independence, while the right supports the decision as necessary for maintaining social harmony and legal clarity.
  • The right emphasises the need for maintaining communal harmony and preventing potential unrest between tribal Hindus and Christians, supporting the High Court’s decision to suggest an alternative burial site.
  • They argue that the village graveyard is reserved for Hindu tribals as per statutory rules, and any deviation could disrupt social cohesion.
  • The right views the insistence on burial in the village as potentially inciting conflict, advocating for a pragmatic approach that prioritises law and order.
  • They support the idea of a consistent national precedent for burial practices to avoid similar disputes in the future, emphasising the importance of legal clarity.
  • The right believes that the issue is being politicised to create unnecessary tensions, advocating for a resolution that respects local customs and traditions.

Prominent Voices 📣

  • Colin Gonsalves (Senior Advocate): Criticised the exclusion of Christians from village burial grounds, highlighting the marginalisation and discrimination faced by the community. 1 2
  • Degree Prasad Chouhan (Lawyer and Human Rights Activist): Described the burial objection as religious discrimination, emphasising the recurring nature of such incidents in the region. 3 4
  • Ramesh Baghel (Farmer and Petitioner): Highlighted the aggressive opposition and social boycott faced by his family due to religious conversion, stressing the impact on their livelihood. 1 4
  • Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General of India): Argued against the village burial to prevent unrest, suggesting alternative sites and emphasising statutory rules for Hindu tribal graveyards. 1 2

Sources 📚

1
The HinduPained to see son unable to bury father in village moving apex court: Supreme Court
2
ETV Bharat‘Pained To See That A Person Is Unable To Bury His Father, Has To Come To The Supreme Court’: SC
3
Scroll.inSC seeks Chhattisgarh’s response after Christian man claims burial of his father was stopped
4
The Indian Express‘Last wish to be buried next to family’: Barred from burying father in village, Chhattisgarh man takes legal fight all the way to Supreme Court

Subscribe to Our Newsletter!

Stay informed and engaged with the latest political discourse by subscribing to our newsletter.

×