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 
 
¶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