Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05NEWDELHI9513
2005-12-19 12:44:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy New Delhi
Cable title:  

EXTRADITION: INDIA: KULBIR SINGH BARAPIND: POST

Tags:  CJAN CVIS PTER PREL KCRM PHUM PGOV IN GOI 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 NEW DELHI 009513 

SIPDIS

L FOR SPOMPER
DRL FOR CCAMPONOVO

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CJAN CVIS PTER PREL KCRM PHUM PGOV IN GOI
SUBJECT: EXTRADITION: INDIA: KULBIR SINGH BARAPIND: POST
RESPONSE

REF: A. STATE 222735

B. 12/01/05 POMPER EMAIL TO POST ATTACHING CAT
SUBMISSION

C. NEW DELHI 6311

D. 00 NEW DELHI 2852

E. 98 NEW DELHI 5439

F. 96 NEW DELHI 14669

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 NEW DELHI 009513

SIPDIS

L FOR SPOMPER
DRL FOR CCAMPONOVO

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CJAN CVIS PTER PREL KCRM PHUM PGOV IN GOI
SUBJECT: EXTRADITION: INDIA: KULBIR SINGH BARAPIND: POST
RESPONSE

REF: A. STATE 222735

B. 12/01/05 POMPER EMAIL TO POST ATTACHING CAT
SUBMISSION

C. NEW DELHI 6311

D. 00 NEW DELHI 2852

E. 98 NEW DELHI 5439

F. 96 NEW DELHI 14669


1. (SBU) Summary: This message will address as many of the
Ref A questions as Post is able to answer. Confirming or
refuting specific allegations of torture is extremely
difficult by the very nature of the usual secrecy surrounding
torture. Barapind's claims of torture include a litany of
many of the forms of torture the police in India are known to
use on criminal and terrorist suspects. At the time of
Barapind's arrest, police routinely tortured and/or killed
terrorists' families and associates. Today, however, India
has numerous activist human rights NGOs that specialize in
assisting victims of police abuse, including some that focus
on Punjab. The free press is also sensitive to human rights,
and a leading HR activist opined "no one will touch" Barapind
given his prominence. The GOI will probably be willing to
give the USG assurances of Barapind's treatment, as they did
when Portugal in November extradited to India notorious
terrorist suspect Abu Salem. That said, India's judiciary is
independent; in the Salem case, the presiding judge stated
that he might not be bound by assurances the GOI made to
Portugal that he would not face the death penalty.
Presumably, however, the government could and would appeal
any such judicial finding that was in contravention of
diplomatic assurances. End Summary.


2. (SBU) The Punjab of today is dramatically different from
the Punjab Barapind fled. Then, a blazing, foreign-supported
insurgency raging across the Punjab threatened the security
of the government in Delhi and deepened divisions between
India and Pakistan. Sikh terrorists even assassinated the
serving PM of India, Indira Gandhi. Today, the Punjab
remains one of the richest states in India, with a
progressive, pro-agriculture government whose Chief Minister

(a Sikh) is working to promote harmonious relations among
Sikhs and between India and Pakistani Punjab. India also
remains a robust democracy, and the Indian government and
people are proud of their traditions of rule of law and
protection of human rights. India's free press, including in
Punjab, actively pursues and exposes government excesses of
all varieties, including torture and corruption. The end of
the Punjab insurgency in the 1990s ushered in a dramatic
decline in custodial deaths and torture allegations. Nor do
Sikhs face specific hardships; they are notably prosperous as
a people and fully integrated in Indian civil society. For
example, the current Indian Prime Minister and Army Chief are
Sikhs. Sikhs also enjoy personal income above the rest of
India, assets out of proportion to their demographic numbers,
and presence in the Armed Forces, police, and bureaucracy
well out of proportion to their numbers vis a vis the rest of
the population of India. Finally, Sikhs overwhelmingly
oppose the efforts of Khalistani (pro-insurgency) Sikhs, and
the intensive police and security force anti-insurgency
efforts of the 1980s and 1990s are largely a thing of the
past.


3. (SBU) In addition to Post's own research and knowledge of
the legal/law enforcement environment in the state of Punjab,
PolFSN interviewed three Indian citizens we believe to be
credible sources who are intimately familiar with the subject
-- they all opposed Sikh terrorism and the Khalistan
movement, but are also outspoken against police abuses:

-- Avinash Chopra is the editor of Punjabi Kesari. Sikh
terrorists killed several of his relatives during the
1980s-90s.

-- Herkewaljit Singh is the editor of Daily Ajit, also a
Punjabi newspaper. He and Chopra reported on the Punjab
insurgency, and have been Embassy contacts for more than 15
years.

-- Rajan Lankanpal is a Punjab High Court Advocate and human
rights activist. He is also the legal counsel for Kamaljit
Kaur Sandhu and Daya Singh Sandhu, who were cited in the
Barapind application. He has filed an estimated 3,000 cases
alleging extra-judicial killing against police in Punjab
since the 1980s.

Responses to Reftel Questions
--------------


4. (SBU) Responses to Reftel questions are labeled to match
the labeling of the original questions.

Begin Questions and Responses:

(a) Question: Barapind's submission claims that he was
detained and tortured by Indian officials in June 1988 and
July 1989 (see Ref B pages 11-14 and 15-16). It claims that
he was tortured in 1988 first by the Nakodar and then by the
Goraya police. It also claims that he was tortured in 1989
at a Central Reserve Police Force Camp in Phagwara and again
after being transferred to the custody of the Criminal
Investigation Agency in Kapurthala. Department requests any
information that Post can gather that would help to assess
the veracity of these claims. (NOTE: Each town/city listed
in this paragraph is located in the state of Punjab. End
Note.)

(a) Response: We have been as yet unable to confirm or refute
Barapind's specific torture claims, although the abuses
alleged are consistent with other claims made by torture
victims in India.

(b) Question: Barapind's submission claims that his family,
friends, and associates were subject to torture, execution,
coercion, and other mistreatment, including as follows:

(1) security forces severely tortured Barapind's father,
brother (Balwand Singh) and brother-in-law (Balraj Singh),
and illegally detained the rest of his family (Ref B pages
15-16 and 41-43 of 11/23 submission);

(2) security forces illegally detained and tortured
Barapind's SSF associate, Gurtej Singh, because of his
association with Barapind (Ref B page 15); and

(3) the government caused the extrajudicial execution of his
alleged accomplices -- including Ranjit Singh Rana in 1991,
Haminder Singh in early 1992, Gurdip Singh Deepa in December
1992, Majinder Singh in December 1992, and Manjit Singh Billa
in 1992 (Ref B page 45).

Department requests any information that Post can gather that
would help to assess the veracity of these claims.

(b) (1-3) Response: We have been as yet unable to
authoritatively confirm or refute Barapind's specific claims
that his family, friends, and associates were subject to
torture, execution, coercion, and other mistreatment. Editor
Avinash Chopra stated that Barapind's relatives were tortured
in 1988-89 as a matter of procedure, and that the police
routinely tortured and/or killed terrorists' families and
associates. He was unable to provide specific details, but
he recalled having covered the issue of torture of the family
and associates of terror suspects as a journalist in the
1980s-90s.

(c) Question: Barapind's submission claims that any
diplomatic assurances that the USG obtains from India cannot
protect Mr. Barapind from torture. In making this argument,
it states that on at least two prior occasions, India failed
to honor diplomatic assurances that it would not torture
Sikhs extradited to India by the United States. In
particular, the submission cites the cases of Daya Singh
Sandhu and Kamaljit Kaur Sandhu, both of whom were extradited
to India in 1997 after the USG had procured assurances from
the GOI that they would be afforded protections under the
Indian Constitution and laws prohibiting torture and
protecting persons against torture and degrading and inhuman
treatment; the right to counsel; and the right to have
counsel, family and representatives of the Indian Human
Rights Commission visit them while in custody. (In addition,
the GOI provided a nonpaper suggesting that the Sandhus would
be held almost
immediately upon return in judicial remand, a situation in
which custodial abuse was understood to be particularly rare.)

Barapind's submission claims that, in spite of the GOI
assurances, the Sandhus were tortured "immediately upon their
return," that they were denied access to counsel and fair
trials, and that they were tried on charges that they were
not extradited on in violation of the "rule of specialty"
under treaty law and practice. In order to assess Barapind's
claims, Department requests Post's input on the following
items:

(c) (1) Question: The credibility/truthfulness of the
Sandhus' claims with respect to their physical treatment upon
being returned to India (Ref B pages 21-24);

(c) (1) Response: We have been as yet unable to confirm or
refute the Sandhus' specific claims with respect to their
physical treatment upon being returned to India. Avinash
Chopra and Rajan Lankanpal each claimed that the Sandhus were
tortured upon their return to India, but they were unable to
provide specific details.

(c) (2) Question: The accuracy of the claim that the Sandhus
were denied access to counsel or were provided
limited/perfunctory access to counsel (Ref B pages 51-53); and

(c) (2) Response: Avinash Chopra told us he was certain that
the Sandhus did/did have access to counsel upon their return
to India in 1997. Rajan Lankanpal said he was not aware that
the Sandhus were denied legal counsel at that time.

(c) (3) Question: The accuracy of the more general claim that
Sandhus did not receive a fair trial because of violations of
the rule of specialty and prolonged pretrial detentions in
addition of lack of access to counsel (Ref B pages 50-58).

(c) (3) Response: Rajan Lankanpal told us that the Punjab
court did at the time of the Sandhus' trial add additional
charges beyond those listed in the extradition order, and
that those charges remained after the Indian Supreme Court
ordered the charges be dropped (after the Sandhus' petition).
He added that the Sandhus have to date only been tried and
convicted for charges on the extradition order.

(c) (4) Question: Department would also be grateful if Post
could share any information about reporting/monitoring that
may have come to its attention with respect to the Sandhus
post-extradition situation (in addition to what is contained
in Ref E) that might shed light on Barapind's claims.

(c) (4) Response: As to the Sandhus' post-extradition
situation, Rajan Lankanpal told us Kamaljit Kaur Sandhu was
released from prison in 2004. Her husband Daya Singh Sandhu
is still in prison, serving his sentence for the charges for
which he was extradited. We do not know if the added charges
remain pending in Punjab, or if they have been dismissed or
removed.

(d) Question: Under federal regulations, the Department's
review of Barapind's submission must take into account, among
other relevant considerations, whether India shows a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights (22 CFR 95.2(a)(2)). Barapind's submission
claims that there continues to be a widespread practice of
torture and custodial deaths in Punjab and India -- citing
among other things a recent State Department report (Ref B
pages 30-33). Department would appreciate Post's assistance
in evaluating this claim -- including an assessment of
whether incidences of custodial abuse are on the rise or fall
in India, in Punjab, and with respect to Sikhs held in
custody.

(d) Response: Post can confirm that the law enforcement
situation in Punjab in 2005 has dramatically improved over
the atmosphere that existed during the insurgency in
1980s-1990s, and can attest that the incidence of torture and
custodial deaths in Punjab has decreased dramatically. As
noted in the 2004 HRR, however, custodial abuse remains a
problem in India, and many alleged police violators
(including the officer Barapind accused of having directed
his torture) have not been tried for their reported offenses.


We do not have information that specifies the treatment of
Sikhs in police custody. As regards torture in Punjab, the
2004 Human Rights Report notes that:

-- One prisoner in Amritsar Central Jail alleged he was
branded on his back by prison officials. Doctors found fresh
scars on his back that had been produced by hot iron rods.

-- Another prisoner alleged that police had forced him to
sign four blank confession statements after repeated torture
by electric shock.

-- Indian media reported that 59 Punjab police officers were
found guilty of human rights violations in 2004.

-- The Director General of Punjab Police reported that
criminal proceedings had begun in the cases of two persons
who died in police custody during the year.

-- The pattern of torture and extrajudicial killings
prevalent in the 1990s has ended, but the government has
failed to hold accountable hundreds of police and security
officials for serious human rights abuses (committed from
1984-94).

(e) Question: In the same vein, Department would be grateful
for Post's assessment of the statements that "(t)he Indian
government believes that insurgency is being revived in
Punjab, and is torturing suspected Sikhs and their
supporters" (Ref B pages 33-36).

(e) Response: The Indian government and Indian terrorism
experts generally viewed the May 22 Delhi cinema bombings,
which Indian government says were carried out by the banned
Sikh terrorist group Babbar Khalsa International (BKI),as a
"last gasp" of Sikh terrorism. Police arrested numerous
suspects based in part on an analysis of telephone call
patterns, and also recovered hundreds of kilos of weapons and
explosives. The government, and our contacts in Punjab (Ref
C),are agreed that there is no evidence that the Sikh
insurgency is reviving. We are not aware of Punjab police
targeting Sikhs for abuse because of their religion. Indeed,
the Punjab police and state administration are dominated by
Sikhs.

Per (Ref C),a Political Officer traveled to Chandigarh
August 4-5 to interview government, business, police, civil
society, and political leaders. They were uniformly
unperturbed by reports of terrorist arrests, attributing the
cinema bombings to outlying extremists. The Punjabis
interviewed did not anticipate a return to the violence of
the 1980s-90s, and they assessed that the Khalistan movement
does not have sufficient manpower or appeal to destabilize
Punjab as it once did. Herkewaljit Singh told us that that
the Sikh population in Punjab is almost uniformly opposed to
Khalistani terrorism, arguing that the Khalistani groups
maintain their lifeblood mainly through contributions from
Sikh expats.

Herkewaljit Singh and human rights activists in Chandigarh
accused the Punjab Police of manufacturing evidence to frame
suspected militants, and noted that the police have no
accounting system to track weapons and explosives seized for
evidence, allowing them to plant the same explosives several
times.

Sikhs continue to retain their prominent status in India's
government, military, and private sector. The Prime Minister
and Army Chief, for instance, are both observant Sikhs.

(f) Question: There are several places where Barapind's
submission suggests that systemic problems skew the
likelihood that Barapind will be tortured upon return. In
particular, the submission suggests that "(1) torture is
imbedded and accepted in the culture and investigative
methodology of India's law enforcement officials ... (2)
security forces will have exclusive control over Mr. Barapind
during police remand ... without any possibility of oversight
... (3) Mr. Barapind has no right to counsel during
interrogations ... and (4) (assuming he is tortured,
Barapind) will have no judicial remedy to redress or prevent
further torture" (Ref B pages 24-26). The submission also
suggests that India's laws do not adequately protect against
torture, and, in fact, encourage torture during
interrogations (Ref B pages 48-50). Department requests
Post's views on the accuracy of these claims.

(f) (1) Response: The statement that "torture is imbedded and
accepted in the culture and investigative methodology of
India's law enforcement officials" is largely accurate.
Forensics in India is weak -- for example, two DNA labs
service the entire country, and even a few years ago police
would routinely staple floppy disks seized as evidence to
police reports. As a consequence, many cases like Barapind's
revolve around personal testimony that is subject to coercion
or force. As Delhi-based terrorism expert Ajai Sahni
explained, especially in regions rife with terrorism (Jammu &
Kashmir, the growing Naxalite belt, the Punjab of the
1980s-90s, etc.),frustration among police, prosecutors and
local inhabitants over the difficulty of securing convictions
against terrorists has led to a culture that tacitly condones
torture. He also remarked that judges secretly condone
extra-judicial killings, as they fear reprisals by terrorists
if they try cases against them.

(f) (2) Response: Indian judges are politically very
powerful, and the rule of law is supported by an assertive
free press and politicians.

(f) (3) Response: We obviously cannot comment
authoritatively as to whether Barapind would have the right
to an attorney during his interrogation, although the right
to counsel is enshrined in Indian law.

(f) (4) Response: Indian federal and state law prohibits
torture. India today has many human rights NGOs that
specialize in assisting victims of police abuse, including
some that focus on Punjab. Assuming Barapind is permitted to
have contact with NGO activists, they will ensure that
abuses, if they occur, are aired in the Indian media. We
cannot predict, however, Barapind's future ability to avail
himself of the courts. Avinash Chopra told us that "no one
will touch (Barapind)" because his case is high profile (in
part because of the extradition) and because of the strength
of human rights activists in the state.
(g) Department requests Post's views on the extent to which
any risk of post-extradition torture that might be identified
could be addressed by a combination of assurances (the
specific contents of which will need to be considered),
access, and monitoring. Department is particularly interested
in Post's assessment of the following:

(g) (1) Response: Question: Whether, as a general matter, the
GOI is likely to be willing to provide assurances in this
case and how long it is likely to take (Days? Weeks?) to
procure these assurances.

(g) (1) The GOI is usually prickly on issues related to
sovereignty. That said, the Home Ministry appears energized
to take possession of Barapind, and may be amenable to
assurances if they are kept out of the public arena. The MHA
is quite happy with US assistance to extradite suspected
terrorist Abu Salem from Portugal, for which the GOI made
assurances that Salem would not face the death penalty.

(g) (2) Question: Which entity within the GOI (and at what
level) could most credibly give assurances;

(g) (2) Response: The Home Ministry at the highest level
should give the assurance, in conjunction with Punjab state
officials and the police force. The National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC),at the level of the Chairperson/Special
Rapporteur on Torture (usually a senior member of the NHRC),
could also give the assurance.

(g) (3) Question: To the extent that incomplete coordination
between national and state or local officials may increase
the risk of non-compliance with assurances, whether this
might be addressed by including in the requested assurances a
stipulation that they have been coordinated appropriately at
the regional/local level, or by any other mechanism;

(g) (3) Response: To be effective, any assurances would have
to include coordination with Punjab state judicial and law
enforcement entities.

(g) (4) Question: Whether the GOI would be willing to assure
the USG or another reliable interlocutor (for example, a
designated NGO) access to Barapind once he is taken into GOI
custody. In discussing which assurances might be given (and
who might give them),Department requests that post include
an assessment of the credibility/reliability of those
assurances.

Please note that in considering these questions it may be
helpful to look at the assurances that GOI provided both in
the Sandhus' case of 1996/7 (Ref F) and in the Sandhu/Gill
case of 2000 (Ref D). Department will provide materials
relating to those assurances under separate cover.

(g) (4) Response: Post notes that GOI has issues such
assurances in the past (Refs D and F) as well as in the Abu
Salem case noted above. However, India's judiciary is
fiercely independent -- in the Salem case, the presiding
judge said he would not be bound by assurances the GOI made
to Portugal. Presumably the government could appeal any such
finding that was in contravention of diplomatic assurances.

(h) Question: Department also requests post's assistance in
reviewing the assertions contained in Barapind's submission
that (a) Barapind will not be able to relocate to avoid
torture (even if released from custody because of dangers
presented by Indian security forces -- see Ref B page 44) and
(b) one of the policemen allegedly responsible for Barapind's
torture in 1988 has been promoted to the senior ranks of the
Punjab police force (Ref B page 47).

(h) (a) Response: We do not assess Barapind's claim that he
will be unable to relocate out of Punjab to be credible.
Economic and social pressures do limit the movement of many
Indians, however, the population is legally and generally
free to move within the country.

(h) (b) Response: With regard to former Senior Superintendent
Punjab Police (Jalandhar) Mohammad Izhar Alam, we can confirm
that he now holds the position of Additional Director General
(Administration) Punjab Police, a senior police posting.
During the insurgency, he assembled a large, personal
paramilitary force of approximately 150 men known as the
"Black Cats" or "Alam Sena" ("Alam's Army") that included
cashiered police officers and rehabilitated Sikh terrorists.
The group had reach throughout the Punjab and is alleged to
have had carte blanche in carrying out possibly thousands of
staged "encounter killings." (NOTE: Former Director General
Punjab Police KPS Gill publicly praised the group, saying the
Punjab police could not function without them. End Note.)
Herkewaljit Singh told us that Alam was "at the top of the
list" in authorizing encounters during the insurgency period.
He also told us, however, that Alam's superior, Director
General of Punjab Police Virk, is very strict and that
custodial killings have decreased under his leadership;
Avinash Chopra said that custodial killings have "declined
dramatically" since 1994 due to post-insurgency changes in
policing in Punjab. When Alam visited the UK in 2003 for a
conference on Indian policing, three individuals accused him
of having either watched them be tortured or directing other
police officers to inflict torture, to include their arms
being suspended from the ceiling, their legs being crushed
under heavy weights, and the application of electric shocks
and acid. Some human rights cases against Alam remain
pending in India.

End Responses.
BLAKE