AN elderly man yesterday won the right to be cremated on a traditional Hindu funeral pyre after a ruling by the Court of Appeal in London.
Davender Ghai, who moved to Britain from Kenya in 1958 and is the founder of the Anglo-Asian Friendship Society, was refused a permit for an open-air cremation site in Northumberland, northeast England, in 2006.
Davender Ghai
According to this report, the 71-year-old lost a challenge to the decision at the High Court in London last May, but yesterday the Appeal Court said Ghai’s wishes could be accommodated within existing legislation.
Ghai welcomed the ruling, although he said his court battle had drained him “physically, mentally and financially.”
Now if I go tomorrow I will go peacefully, because I know that I will have a good send-off. Everyone should live and die according to their own religion.
Britain’s Cremation Act of 1902, which covers the disposal by burning of dead bodies in crematoria, does not include faith-based funeral pyres.
The government, named as an interested party in the case, argued during the case that:
Others in the community would be upset and offended… and would find it abhorrent that human remains were being burned in this way.
But Ghai’s lawyers argued that denying him the right to an open-air pyre conflicts with human rights legislation which protects, among other rights, the right to freedom of religious belief.
Judge David Neuberger asked Ghai’s lawyer what his client wanted and was told the funeral pyre should be made of wood and be open to the sky – but it could be surrounded by walls and the pyre covered with a roof with an opening.
Said Neuberger, who led a three-judge panel:
It seems to us that Mr Ghai’s religious and personal beliefs as to how his remains should be cremated once he dies can be accommodated within current cremation legislation.
A spokesman for Newcastle City Council, which rejected Ghai’s initial application, said it now wants the Home Office to clarify guidelines on cremations.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment, which is of national importance, advised that buildings of open-air design can fall within the definition of crematoria under the terms of the Cremation Act 1902.
He added that local authorities:
Await further guidance… as regards any proposed regulations or legislation which may control the proposed manner of cremation to ensure environmental standards and public health are protected.
In a statement, Ghai welcomed public support for his case.
This case was truly a matter of life and death for me and today’s verdict has breathed new life into an old man’s dreams. I am overwhelmed by the general public’s sympathy and also the number of landowners who have offered land to accommodate my natural cremation.
During the court battle Ghai’s lawyer Ramby De Mello said his client wanted an open pyre where he would be burnt on logs, cremated “in a sacrament of fire” and would receive Vedic last rights.
He also wanted the pyre to be close to flowing water and did not want to be burned by gas flames. After the cremation he wants his ashes to be immersed in the River Ganges, he added.
The 2001 Census found there were nearly 550,000 Hindus in England, making up one percent of the population, with the vast majority living in urban areas.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
February 11th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Is this such a terrible thing? The guy lives in my part of the world, is not a raging bigot, and hasn’t – crucially, for me – demanded that English be changed to suit his religion. Instead he sought and got clarification on a bit old law.
February 11th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Agreed. I wouldn’t be wild about his cremation happening in an urban area where others might have to wonder if they’re going to end up wearing some of his ashes, but if can get a bit of out of the way land to do it, why not? No skin off my nose.
So long as the appropriate steps are taken to avoid his wishes being an imposition on others, knock yourself out mate.
February 11th, 2010 at 9:48 am
I see no problem with this ruling. Valdemar seems to have hit the nail squarely on the noggin.
Mr. Ghai is from all accounts a decent, likeable, peaceable, live-and-let-live man. He’s not demanding anything extraordinary, just that he should be allowed to dispose of his remains in a manner that is, to him, traditional and meaningful.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Aye – no fuss from me – chap seems like a decent bloke.
As long as they don’t throw his missus onto the pyre. (Or is that in bad taste!)
Besides – I want to go up in flames on a viking longboat pushed out to sea off the Formby coastline, with the album “Blood Fire Death” by Bathory being blasted out.
I think that’s an entirely reasonable request.
With luck – I may even float up the mersey estuary and rain ash down on my favourite haunts.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:55 am
I would object to this on environmental grounds, personally. I assume that there are bylaws regarding bonfires in his neck of the woods. I have to say that his lawyers must be laughing all the way to the bank once again, having established that his body can be burnt on a funeral pyre “open to the sky” but “surounded by walls” and “covered by a roof”: ie a cremation! Religious lunacy again!!
February 11th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Looking forward to dead Parsees being placed on a platform for the vultures to consume their earthly remains!
February 11th, 2010 at 11:32 am
If they can provide an enclosed zoo-type area and their own tame vultures why not?
February 11th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Completely agree with all of the above – this isn’t, for once, another case of the religulous. From what I’ve seen and read, the guy seems decent and sincere, hasn’t been crowing about his victory or trying to ‘get one over’, just wants to be left alone to do it his way within the law. If only all religious people were like him.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
What are you people talking about? Another religiot wants special provisions to accomodate his ludicrous beliefs! I posted a much longer comment earlier, but it has “disappeared” again!!
February 11th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I am definitely keen on the vulture idea. Maybe with globing warming we could introduce some in the UK. As I live near the sea I fancy “throwing to the sharks” for myself as I admire these creatures. My dogs end up under a habitat pile surrounded by trees but the chickens become fox food. On a recent occasion the latter’s demise was somewhat premature but we have re-stocked now. I can’t see any problem with this apparently decent man. What I do not like are those who insist on telling the rest of us that we must conform to their behaviour.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
As long as no tax-payer’s expense is involved and he pays for it himself have no objection.
Put me down as another for the Vultures/Sky burial. Shame to waste the meat, imho.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I assume that the vultures have had all his money now, Tom, unless this nonsense was funded by the longsuffering taxpayer yet again!
February 11th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Surely the right to freedom of religious beliefs doesn’t include the right to indulge in religious practices which are otherwise considered abhorrent or illegal? Such as, for instance, chucking his wife onto the flames, had he believed in so doing. Clearly, then, the law trumps religious practices where the two are in conflict.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
You’re right, Brian. He can believe what he damned well likes, but he can’t do what he likes!
February 11th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I prefer his remains put in the Ganges. Wouldn’t be happy if they started dumping loads of ashes up river from me.
Human Rights? Only when convenient, it seems. We seem as a government to have moved into the torture game – hung by the wrists for a day, beaten till the victim vomits, carve his genitals with a razor and so much more. And guess what, the good old US of A has been upset because a judge decides to release the details. It is all crap, of course, as it was all released in the USA some time ago. They just like to give the UK a kicking. They know we are still the poodles.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Most likely people already do scatter ashes upriver from you, Broga. For as long as I can remember people have been allowed to scatter ashes more or less anywhere. Natural scenes have been very popular.
As for the human rights claims, that argument was not tested. It was instead established that if you’re in a crematorium that has windows you can open them and call it open-air under current legislation. He just wants a window in the roof.
Pollution? Well, when they cremated my uncle his ashes were taken right outside and shaken all over the yard. He certainly polluted the air in the vicinity.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I think this “funeral pyre” is going to cause a lot more pollution than your average cremation! Ashes cause no pollution whatsoever (though I had a couple of chain-smoking uncles of whom I think that that might not have been strictly correct!!).
February 11th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Harry: Many thanks for the information. I read somewhere that (anyone of an unduly sensitive disposition read no further) any water we drink has already passed through several bodies. Further, men are now seeking surgery to have their breasts reduced – very popular operation now – and the increased size is, to some extent, the result of the contraceptive pill effects in women’s pee.
Seems to me there are just too many people on the planet and the great brains in the Vatican and elsewhere want as many more as they can get.
The vulture/sky god bit is reminiscent of the 12th century Mongols – Temujin/Ghengis Khan – who left their dead in the hills for the birds to eat. Genghis and his buddies called him the Sky Father but not to be confused with the Imaginary Sky Fairy the current synod are complaining does not get enough time on BBC. (A clumsy attempt to distract from their many other problems eg women bishops; gay clergy and same sex marriages; running out of money to fund the bishops lifestyle in a way to which they should never have become accustomed; unelected bishops in the House of Lords meddling in legislation and wanting “equality” and so much more.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
When I were a lad spirits could find their own way back to heaven: now they need a bloody map! What’s the world coming to, that’s what I want to know!! Next thing you know we’ll have…
February 11th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Well, I think the basic point stands – the guy is doing something legal under the Cremation Act of 1909, not some bit of Noo Labour pandering for votes legislation. He is also the founder of the Anglo-Indian Friendship Society, a peaceful organisation that stands in stark contrast to a lot of other organisations founded by religious persons of a sub-continental origin. Nuff sed.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
valdemar: I’m with you on this. He has been here since 1958 and seems a decent man. We have enough bastards on our hands already, including the Noo Labour faith brigade, without adding unecessarily. As you say, and the same from me, nuff sed.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
the right to freedom of religious belief.
This now seems to mean the right to freedom of religious schennanigens
but then I was always against burying; it is a waste of space.
February 11th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Apart from the ecological side of open air cremations, I’m with Davender Ghai, who doesn’t seem to have an in your face attitude. I wouldn’t go to all that trouble; cannibalize me for spare parts and bury or burn the rest of me.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:02 am
It’s not as if they’ll burn him in the back street. Nobody will be able to stumble upon the site accidentally. Why so much fuss in the first place? How much has this legal bickering cost the tax payer? Were they worried that open air burnings would become a popular trend? If so, they should have spent the money on kindling!
February 12th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Does that mean we can do Viking funerals now? We do live by the sea and my partner says he wants a proper pagan heavy metal send off, complete with flaming boat, heavy metal (accompanied by bagpipes) and drinking mead out of horns. I assume we’d have to get permission from Essex county council. Since it’s part of my nearly husband’s pagan beliefs, does that mean he can uphold it as part of his religous human rights thingies? I think Mr Ghai may have opened the flood gates. So to speak.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
You can’t be burned on a boat at sea, no. Not without changing the law. What you can do is be burned on a boat in a specially constructed building that will allow what is left of the boat (and you) to float out to sea after the body is consumed by the fire.
Now, the best result I can see of this case is a wide reaching review of funeral practices as a whole. Is it really a good idea to scatter carbonised powder around where passers-by will breathe them in? Do you want to breathe in someone’s grandpa? What about lifegems? They sound awesome.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
There was a cartoon in Private Eye in 2001 which showed a body being burnt on a longship, floating on a municipal boating lake. A furious attendant was shouting at the family: “I don’t care if he did have Viking ancestry, you can’t do that here!”. Prescient?
February 12th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Why not just have a place which everyone knows about where bodies can be burned in the open air, Hindu, Viking or whatever. No one has to go there, no one need be offended. It could be fenced off, or surrounded by trees, or something. I’ve seen people cremated in India – it is no big deal, certainly less gruesome than many things you see in movies.
I would like somewhere similar where my body can be eaten by birds of prey. No need for vultures – we have ravens, crows, buzzards, red kites and seagulls, all of which eat carrion. I haven’t the least objection to people coming and watching, if they like.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Excuse me but this IS still England isn’t it? Forgive me for thinking for a moment it was INDIA. People having therselves immolated in the open air and dipped in the fucking Ganges. We will all be prancing about town in funny hats and slippers before long saying “oh very yes” and “really really”.
February 13th, 2010 at 1:16 am
But won’t this case set a precedent? Now that one Hindu has the right, the religious right, to an open air funeral, won’t this now mean all Hindus will now have that right? If the law is changed to accommodate one man, surely now it is changed for all of them?
How can anyone say no now to Hindu open air funerals? Surely they will all want this right? Citing Mr Ghai’s case? If he has won his case based on his ‘religious right’ then this is now the right of ALL Hindus. Mr Ghai isn’t just one man wanting a special case funeral just for himself. this is a HINDU funeral, based on their religion, and what is right for one Hindu, is right for all of them; so it has set up a precedent in law. No one now can refuse their demands to open air funerals. the precedent has been set and done.
Beware of this, or England will end up a smoke haze of burning funeral pyres of dead Hindu bodies from one end of the country to the other, as is their right. I can’t believe the support for this…no one has a right to ‘religious rights’ that override the laws of the land, surely?
February 13th, 2010 at 8:10 am
But he’s a “nice bloke” evidently, Callisto, so he must have what he wants!
February 13th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
_ sorry, but way off topic _
Sorry to go way off topic but my son has been presented with the homework of “Who is Jesus?” and, partial to your consistant whit about this subject, was wondering about your responses to this qustion?
My answer was…
Why the present tense? Even if he did live, once upon a time, then surely its time to give up these illogical superstitious beliefs in favour of G.C.S.E biology FACTS? Surely, you can’t be born of a virgin Miss xxxxxxxx, Can you you?
My guess is that Jesus was, at very best, a great moral teacher a long, long time ago. His teachings however, regardless of how they may have seemed at the time, are irrelevant in an age enriched in scientific discovery? Forget Jesus, lets move on hey? It is about time, isn’t it? The Question of “Who is the tooth fairy†carries equally the same significance and importance!?
October 4th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
I see no problem with this, as long as its obviously not done round hte back of the local tandoori loool if its in a nice secluded place then go for it.
anyone that argues against it on the grounds of environmental issues……. what car do you drive?????