JOHN DAYAL
Amid the constant noise and near normalising of persecution against religious minorities in India, why does the denial of burial to Christians by villagers in Chhattisgarh—and in pockets elsewhere— stir anger, not just in the wider Christian community but also from or dinary Hindus and Judges on the benches of the Supreme Court? This is not selective out rage of a few, but something profoundly positive, revealing that even in a deeply polarised climate, a basic sense of shared humanity endures. Disrespect ing the dead crosses a line that routine violence or social boy cott sometimes fails to breach, moving the collective Indian conscience in a manner few other injustices can. Chhattisgarh has witnessed repeated incidents of burial denial with monitoring groups such as the United Christian Forum (UCF) documenting at least 23 burial-related in cidents nationwide in 2025, with the overwhelming major ity occurring in Chhattisgarh.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Local reports and testimo nies from affected families suggest the numbers are even higher. Law activist Degree Prasad Chauhan of Raipur has documented 147 complaints from families facing similar harassment in recent years and hundreds of disputes in the Bastar region alone. Families are forced to watch their loved ones’ bodies remain unclaimed in mortuaries for weeks on end. Some face overt pressure to convert to Hindu ism to secure a decent burial; in extreme cases, graves have been threatened with or sub jected to exhumation. That this particular form of injustice pierces through the daily clamour of communal tensions is rooted in human psychology and anthropology as across cultures and civilisa tions, funeral rites rank among humanity’s earliest and most universal behaviours, affirm ing our shared mortality and the enduring bonds of com munity and memory.
Denying them feels like an attack not merely on one faith but on our common humanity itself. Routine persecution—as saults on prayer halls, social boycotts, economic ostracism, or threats—often gets normal ised in public discourse as “lo cal tensions” or “law and order issues.” Death is meant to be the great leveller, and when it is weaponised as yet another arena for division and domi nance, something fundamen tal within us rebels. This reaction transcends community lines, and many Hindus who may hold differ ing views on issues of conver sion or proselytisation still find grave desecration, forced displacement of bodies, or de nial of last rites deeply unac ceptable. It taps into a residual cul tural consensus—rooted in India’s pluralistic ethos—that the dead deserve respect, ir respective of faith, an instant that is a beacon of hope amid deepening divides.
Indian courts have also consistently safeguarded this instinct through Article 21 of the Constitution, which guar antees the right to life and personal liberty, expanding primary concern with the liv ing into a protective mantle posthumously. The Supreme Court has re peatedly affirmed that the right to dignity does not evaporate with the cessation of breath, families possess a fundamen tal right to perform last rites according to their religious be liefs, and the state bears a cor responding duty to facilitate the decent and respectful disposal of bodies. Even as early as 1995, the Supreme Court held that the right to dignity and fair treat ment under Article 21 extends not only to a living person but also to their mortal remains – a corpse must be treated with the same respect and humani ty as the living individual.
In 2002, the Court upheld the right of even homeless or unclaimed deceased persons to a decent burial or crema tion in accordance with their religious faith. Courts have clarified that the right to a decent burial forms part of the expanded meaning of “life” under Arti cle 21, encompassing cultural, religious, and emotional di mensions that give meaning to existence. High Courts, such as of Madras and Allahabad, have echoed these sentiments, stressing that denial of burial or cremation grounds on dis criminatory grounds violates equality (Article 14), non-dis crimination on religious grounds (Article 15), and free dom of religion (Article 25). The most poignant recent affirmation came in the Jan uary 2025 case of Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh, concerning the denial of bur ial to a pastor in the Bastar region, where the body lan guished in a mortuary for over three weeks. The village panchayat re sisted burial in the local grave yard, citing “custom” and fears of unrest, despite historical precedent of Christian mem bers of the same tribal Mah ra community being interred there.
Justice B V Nagarathna delivered a compelling and principled opinion, calling the refusal “unfortunate, discrim inatory and unconstitutional,” clearly violating Articles 14 and 15(1). The panchayat’s own affida vit admitted that individuals who had “forsworn the tradi tion of the community or con verted to Christianity” were barred from the village grave yard—a blatant admission of hostile discrimination that be trayed the constitutional val ues of secularism and fraterni ty enshrined in the Preamble. More broadly, she ordered the Chhattisgarh government to demarcate exclusive burial sites for Christians across the state within a stipulated time frame to avert future conflicts. Her reasoning endures as a luminous affirmation – custom ary claims, majority discom fort, or panchayat resolutions cannot override fundamental rights to equality, religious freedom, and dignity in death. Subsequent Supreme Court interventions in 2026, includ ing interim orders staying for cible exhumations of Christian bodies, have built upon this foundation, holding unequiv ocally that dignity in death is non-negotiable, even as it nav igates complex central and lo cal governance challenges.
In the “massive noise” of routine persecution, the bur ial issue continues to break through. It suggests that In dia’s moral reflexes are not en tirely dulled. When persecution descends to denying peaceful rest to the dead, it triggers a deeper re sponse—one rooted in shared cultural and constitutional commitments to basic human decency, transcending parti san lines. The public outrage, the flood of PILs, the Supreme Court’s repeated interventions, and the discomfort voiced even by ordinary citizens from major ity communities all point to a positive truth — beneath the polarisation, a moral line per sists that still moves India. Yet hope must translate into action and the Supreme Court’s directives on demar cating burial sites must be im plemented urgently and trans parently. Broader reforms are equally pressing.
Christian groups have been demanding reversal of anti-conversion laws, often invoked to justify social os tracism, inclusion of Dalit Christians from Scheduled Caste benefits under the 1950 Presidential Order, and full im plementation of constitutional protections, while addressing internal challenges such as casteism within communities. (John Dayal is an author, Editor, occasional documen tary film maker and activist)
