From Washington to Delhi, the Shadow of Epstein, Power, Complicity, and Unanswered Questions
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.
Complexity 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.
A History of Impunity
The first complaints against him were made in 2005, when a mother in Palm Beach, Florida, 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 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. Two Indian names have surfaced in the mails: industrialist Anil Ambani and Hardeep Puri, now a Union Minister in the Narendra Modi government.
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 our 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.
The Puri Emails
The government strained every nerve to shield Hardeep Puri 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 turn away from 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.
Conclusion: Unanswered Questions
It brings disgrace to India to have a Cabinet Minister who willfully 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. The questions raised by these revelations demand answers. Why was a prominent Indian businessman communicating with a convicted sex offender about arranging high-level political meetings? Why does a Union Minister remain in office despite emails showing familiarity with Epstein and his “exotic island”? What inquiries have been conducted, and what have they found?
The Epstein files have opened a window into the ethically bankrupt operations of global capitalism and its intersection with political power. In India, as in America, the questions raised demand answers. The survivors of Epstein’s crimes deserve justice. But so too do citizens who deserve to know whether their leaders were complicit, whether through action or through the normalisation of such associations.
Q&A: Unpacking the Epstein Files and the India Angle
Q1: What do the Epstein files reveal about the intersection of power and criminality?
The files show how Epstein’s network of sexual exploitation served as a “bonding” mechanism for the powerful—creating mutual dependency through shared experiences and complicity. Participation in spaces where minors were trafficked and abused became a glue of secrecy, intertwined with business deals, financial transactions, and political access. Epstein functioned as broker and facilitator, normalising a model where criminality and impunity were treated as entitlements.
Q2: What are the specific allegations involving Anil Ambani?
Correspondence between Ambani and Epstein shows familiarity and sexualised, demeaning language regarding women. More significantly, ahead of a proposed prime ministerial visit to Washington, Ambani wrote seeking Epstein’s help to arrange meetings with Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, stating “Leadership would like our help.” If authentic, these emails raise questions about why a businessman was invoking “Leadership” with a convicted sex offender, and whether he was authorised to do so.
Q3: What do the emails involving Hardeep Puri reveal?
Puri’s emails include: “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 “Give me a shout when you are back. And, have fun. Not that you require encouragement from others for that.” Puri claims ignorance of Epstein’s crimes, but the emails suggest familiarity, and his subsequent defence trivialised Epstein’s offences as involving “a woman who was underage.”
Q4: How did the government respond to these revelations in Parliament?
The government strained to shield Puri, shutting down discussion of the Epstein files in Parliament. The Ministry of External Affairs dismissed references to the Prime Minister in the emails as “trashy ruminations of a convicted criminal.” Critics argue this misses the point—the issue is not Epstein’s credibility but what Ambani and Puri wrote, and whether any inquiry has been conducted.
Q5: What broader questions does the Epstein case raise about accountability?
The case exposes how powerful individuals can operate with impunity, protected by legal systems that fail victims. In America, Epstein received a lenient plea deal and was allowed to continue activities despite known crimes. In India, questions remain about whether businessmen acted as unofficial representatives, whether ministers maintained inappropriate associations, and why parliamentary discussion was prevented. The survivors’ struggle for justice continues, as does the public’s right to know.
