Communal cases

THE concluding portion of the order passed by Deputy Commissioner FH Puckle in what is known as Haidar Pahlwan’s case, which had created a considerable stir in Amritsar, deserves more than a passing notice, not so much on account of its applicability or otherwise to that particular case but on account of its general applicability to other similar cases, the number of which is unhappily on the increase. In the course of his judgment, Puckle said: “I cannot refrain from commenting on the inconceivable folly and criminality of those who seek to obtain satisfaction for their communal hatred by misusing the processes of the courts of law. This case, which was a simple one, has been magnified into a cause celebre by persons who imagined that it was their duty to their community to see that a Hindu’s life was paid for by the life of a Mahomedan. Had the deceased been a Mahomedan or had the accused been a Hindu, I should not have had the privilege of hearing in my court leading advocates of the High Court Bar. The manner in which the case against Haidar has been pressed (I am of course not referring to counsel who appeared before me) has been such as to envenom the relations of two communities to degrade the right to obtain justice into a claim to wreak vicarious vengeance and to produce a state of feeling which has endangered the peace of Amritsar.” We are not in a position to justify the remarks of the magistrate in relation to the particular case with which he was dealing. What happened was a Hindu was brutally murdered in broad daylight in a crowded part of one of the biggest towns of the province.