In February 2026, a decades-old American scandal has exploded into a full-blown political firestorm in India. Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera’s viral press conference video, where he demands the resignation of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri over documented contacts with Jeffrey Epstein, has reignited debates about accountability, moral authority, and opposition tactics. But how much of the outrage is grounded in facts, and how much is political theatre?
This post dives deep into the controversy, examining the video, the newly released Epstein files, the verifiable evidence, and what it all means for Indian politics.
The Video That Sparked the Row
On February 13, 2026, HW News English uploaded a clip of Congress leader Pawan Khera addressing the media with uncharacteristic fury. Standing at a podium, Khera tears into Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, accusing him of lying about his associations with Jeffrey Epstein—the convicted sex offender and financier who died in 2019.
Khera’s speech is sharp and unrelenting. He quotes emails, highlights meetings, and repeatedly asks: “Does a minister who has been in contact with a convicted sex trafficker like Epstein have the moral authority to remain in office?” The video quickly racked up views across platforms, amplified by opposition handles and shared widely on WhatsApp groups.
Key moments from Khera’s presser:
• He accuses Puri of downplaying Epstein’s crimes by calling victims “underage women.”
• He claims Puri shared sensitive policy details—like Digital India concepts—before their official launch.
• He demands Puri’s resignation and an independent probe.
The video is compelling political theatre, but does it hold up under scrutiny?
What the Epstein Files Actually Say
The controversy stems from documents unsealed by the U.S. Department of Justice in early 2026—thousands of pages of emails, contact lists, and court records from Epstein’s cases.
Hardeep Singh Puri, a former Indian diplomat and UN ambassador, appears multiple times. Evidence confirms:
• Several email exchanges between Puri and Epstein, mostly between 2013 and 2015.
• At least 3–4 in-person meetings, often linked to the International Peace Institute (IPI), a think tank where both were involved.
• One email where Puri writes, “Jeff, can I see you?”—suggesting he initiated contact on at least one occasion.
• Discussions about policy ideas, including an early mention of “Digital India” (officially launched in 2015) and multilateralism.
There are also lighter, more unsettling notes: Epstein once wrote to an associate about Puri, “Have fun on the exotic island,” though context suggests this was not literal and unrelated to Epstein’s private island.
Importantly, there is no evidence in the released files that Puri visited Epstein’s island, was involved in any criminal activity, or was aware of the full extent of Epstein’s sex-trafficking network at the time. Puri has stated the first meeting was an “ambush” introduction and that subsequent ones were professional.
Puri’s Defense: Professional Contacts, Not Friendship
Hardeep Singh Puri has responded forcefully in multiple interviews (NDTV, India Today, Republic TV). His core arguments:
• The meetings were part of his diplomatic role at the IPI and UN.
• He had no close personal relationship with Epstein.
• He became aware of Epstein’s darker side only later and cut off contact.
• He described Epstein as a “power broker” in interviews, a term critics say minimizes the gravity of Epstein’s crimes.
Puri and the BJP have dismissed the Congress campaign as a desperate smear with no substance. “They have nothing on governance, so they dig up old professional contacts,” one BJP spokesperson said.
Other Indian Names in the Files
Puri is not the only Indian-linked figure mentioned.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name appears indirectly. Epstein claimed in a 2017 email that Modi “took my advice” on his historic Israel visit that year—specifically on strengthening ties for mutual U.S.-India benefit. There is zero evidence of direct contact between Modi and Epstein. The Ministry of External Affairs called these claims “trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal.”
Businessman Anil Ambani features more prominently:
• Multiple emails and at least one confirmed visit to Epstein’s New York home.
• Discussions ranged from U.S. political access to personal financial advice.
Cultural figures like Deepak Chopra, Mira Nair, and Anurag Kashyap are mentioned in passing, with no implication of wrongdoing.
Notably, no current Indian politician besides Puri has documented direct meetings or email exchanges with Epstein.
The 2017 Modi-Netanyahu Visit: A Tangential Connection?
Epstein’s self-aggrandizing claim about influencing Modi’s 2017 Israel trip has added fuel to opposition narratives. That visit—Modi’s historic first by a sitting Indian PM—was a diplomatic milestone, marked by warm personal chemistry with Benjamin Netanyahu and seven bilateral MoUs on water, agriculture, innovation, and space.
None of those MoUs involved private Indian conglomerates like Reliance or Adani as direct beneficiaries. Claims linking the visit to Epstein via backchannels remain speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Why This Matters—And Why It Might Not
For Congress, this is a golden opportunity. In a Parliament session dominated by economic debates and electoral bonds scrutiny, the Epstein angle offers moral high ground: “How can a minister linked to a sex trafficker hold office?” It fits a broader opposition strategy to question the government’s ethical standards.
For the BJP, it’s a non-issue. Professional networking with controversial figures is common in diplomacy. No laws were broken, no criminal complicity alleged. Similar contacts involving global leaders (Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew) did not lead to resignations solely on association.
Yet the episode raises uncomfortable questions:
• Should public officials be judged by associations made before full knowledge of someone’s crimes?
• Where do we draw the line between professional courtesy and moral compromise?
The AI Deepfake Deluge
One major caveat: Since the file release, social media has been flooded with AI-generated images and fake videos purporting to show Indian leaders with Epstein. Fact-checkers have debunked dozens. Always verify sources—the real documents are text-heavy, with no new compromising photos or videos of politicians.
Conclusion: Politics Over Substance?
Pawan Khera’s video is powerful rhetoric, backed by real documents showing genuine contacts. But it stretches those contacts into demands for resignation without evidence of wrongdoing. As of February 15, 2026, Hardeep Singh Puri remains in office, and the government shows no sign of yielding.
This controversy may fade as quickly as it flared—or it could linger as another chapter in India’s polarized politics. What is clear is that Jeffrey Epstein, even in death, continues to cast a long shadow over global elites—including, now, India’s political class.
What do you think—should association alone disqualify a minister, or is this just opposition mudslinging? Share your views in the comments.