From Washington to Delhi, the shadow of Epstein

The release of documents from the Epstein files has done more than expose the depravity of one man. The documents illuminate the dark truths of a new model of “bonding” between political power, corporates, financial institutions, the wealthy and the influential. Structural class-based bonding is hardly new, nor are criminality and impunity treated as entitlement. But the files show how deep the rot is — the elimination of even the semblance of morality as a reference point in systems devoted to private profit.

Jeffrey Epstein was a paedophile and convicted sex offender, among his many other “qualifications”. One would have thought that in any civilised society, such a man would be punished and socially isolated. But in America — a country that seeks to preach democracy to the world — it was precisely these attributes that enabled him to innovate a globalised model of developing business relations that included the sexual exploitation of young women and children. Rich white men in America, Presidents and former Presidents, bankers in Russia and Europe, sheikhs in West Asia, and links in India are all named in the files. It is not that all those named necessarily participated in “bonding” based on sexual criminality. The services offered by Epstein were many and varied, not all sexual. Their crime is that, being in positions of power, their closeness to Epstein normalised his model of bonding.

Complicity and depravity

For many of those named, it involved shared experiences in spaces where minors were trafficked and abused. Participation created mutual dependency, the glue of which was secrecy and complicity. Even a cursory reading of the mail exchanges now flooding the Internet shows the striking intertwining of coded language for sexual depravity with references to business deals, financial transactions, with banks ignoring warning signals, and the gaining of access to political and financial contacts — with Epstein as broker and facilitator. The sexual use of women and children was transactional — building blocks for networks, profit and power. The Epstein files open a window into the ethically bankrupt operations of capitalism.

There may be degrees of culpability. Legal frameworks differentiate between direct participation in crime and abetment. Abetment too has degrees. But for anyone who engaged with Epstein after 2008, a defence based on lack of knowledge simply does not hold. The first complaints against him were made in 2005, when a mother in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., filed a complaint that he had abused her 14-year-old daughter. Police investigations identified at least a dozen more victims. Instead of decisive action, the Federal government under President Bush accepted a sweetheart non-prosecution deal pushed by Epstein’s powerful lawyers. Epstein pleaded guilty to lesser charges of “soliciting a prostitute and a minor” and received a sentence of 13 months, during which he was allowed to leave jail daily to attend his office and return at night. Successive governments, regardless of party, ignored the voices of victims. Epstein continued his activities with impunity.

It was only because of the courage and sustained struggle of the survivors that in July 2019, Epstein was arrested on charges not covered by the 2008 agreement. He died, reportedly by suicide, in August before trial. The emails and documents now released, dating from around 2002 to 2019, provide evidence of those involved. Yet, by redacting names, the Department of Justice under U.S. President Donald Trump has protected the identities of powerful men. Survivors have repeatedly stated that the Trump administration mounted one of the biggest cover-ups in history.

The India angle

It is for the American people to address their institutions. From India, we extend solidarity to the courageous survivors demanding justice and accountability.

But it does not end there.

Two Indian names have surfaced in the mails. The first is industrialist Anil Ambani, known to be close to the leadership of the ruling regime, as evidenced by the official recommendation to have him as the Indian partner in the Rafale deal. The second is Hardeep Puri.

The correspondence between Mr. Ambani and Epstein reflects familiarity and sexualised, demeaning language regarding women. The more consequential exchange concerns political access. Ahead of a proposed visit by India’s Prime Minister to Washington, Mr. Ambani wrote: “Leadership would like ur help for me to meet Jared (Mr. Trump’s son-in-law) and Bannon asap… likely visit to DC by PM in May to meet Donald… Also assistance on that.”

Mr. Ambani represented himself as acting in relation to a prime ministerial visit and sought Epstein’s help to arrange meetings with senior U.S. political figures. If authentic — and they have not been denied as fabricated — these emails raise serious governance questions. Why was an Indian businessman invoking “Leadership” in communications with a convicted sex offender? Was he authorised to speak in this manner? Is there any inquiry about these claims?

India’s Ministry of External Affairs dismissed references to the Prime Minister in these emails as “trashy ruminations of a convicted criminal”. But the issue is not Epstein’s credibility. It is Mr. Ambani’s words. Why has no action been taken against him? Or is it because he was indeed acting on behalf of the government? The government must answer.

Mr. Puri is now a Union Minister in the Narendra Modi government. The Government strained every nerve to shield him in Parliament, shutting down discussion of the Epstein files. In a press conference, Mr. Puri claimed lack of knowledge of Epstein’s activities to justify his mails dating from 2014. Apart from evidence that he met Epstein several times, consider this exchange: “Dear Jeff, seasons greetings. Please let me know when you are back from your exotic island. I would like to come across for a chat…”

And later: “Give me a shout when you are back. And, have fun. Not that you require encouragement from others for that.”

Does this signify ignorance?

A questionable defence

In the same press conference, Mr. Puri trivialised Epstein’s crimes, stating: “He was convicted for soliciting a prostitute and a woman who was underage. And that’s it.” Really, Mr. Puri? A woman who was underage? Do you mean a child? And for you that is not reason enough to shun association?

He went further, recounting that “a lady MP” told him others were jealous, to which he replied that if something had happened he would speak. Who was this lady Member of Parliament, party to such misogynism which passes as humour? What does it say about the standards of our Members of Parliament? By his own words, for the Minister, participation in acts on an “exotic island”, the notorious site of sexual exploitation, is framed as something to be jealous of. His defence is that he had not done anything to excite such jealousy. These are not semantic slips. They are an example of how rape cultures are strengthened.

It brings disgrace to India to have a Cabinet Minister who wilfully maintained contact with a convicted sex offender and then defends that association. Does his continuation in office signify approval from the Prime Minister?

Parliament was not allowed to discuss the Epstein files. There is no such prohibition on the people of India.

Brinda Karat is a senior leader of the CPI(M)

Published – February 20, 2026 12:16 am IST