The 'trashy ruminations of a convicted criminal'

Six-and-a-half years after Jeffrey Epstein, 66 at the time, allegedly took his own life in a prison in New York, correspondence, photographs, logs and documents seized from his houses are still making news.

As mysterious in life as in death, nobody quite knows how he made his wealth. What is known, however, is that he was accused and convicted of sexually abusing hundreds of children — over 500 victims had been identified — grooming and trafficking them. The fresh tranche of documents released in the US on 30 January contain references to several Indians, at least two of them more prominently than others.

Even as references to India and Indians in the infamous ‘Epstein Files’ continue to make ripples, curiously the references begin in 2014, the year India became ‘independent’ according to BJP MP Kangana Ranaut. What explains Epstein’s interest in India and Indians after 2014 is a question that remains to be examined.

References to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, petroleum minister Hardeep Puri and industrialist Anil Ambani in the mails and documents released by the US Department of Justice, begin in May 2014, just before Modi was sworn in as prime minister on 26 May.

Days before results were declared on 16 May 2014, Epstein in an email expressed his desire to visit India and mentioned ‘Jaitley and Modi’. It is not clear if he was acquainted with the two. He is told in a reply that he would hate visiting India and was advised against visiting the country in summer.

Puri’s interactions with Epstein begin in June 2014, days after Modi is sworn in as PM and six months after Puri, a retired diplomat, joined the BJP in January 2014. Puri and Epstein, the files indicate, met four times between 5 June and 9 June 2014. From what is known so far, Puri does not figure in the files after he became a minister in the Modi cabinet in September 2017.

In a strong defence of his conduct, Puri has said he was meeting Epstein as a patriotic, far-sighted Indian seeking assistance to attract investments to India. He claims to have been far-sighted in referring in his mails in 2014 to ‘Digital India’ and ‘Make in India’ — two programmes launched in 2015 and 2016.

He hasn’t explained, though, why his interactions and exchanges with Epstein ceased once he joined the Union cabinet in September 2017. What was the outcome of his efforts? Which are the investments that came in because of his efforts as a ‘private citizen’ and through Epstein?

Puri cites Epstein’s email in September 2014 to introduce him to LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. ‘Reid, Hardeep is your man in India’. In October, an impatient Epstein wants to know about the outcome of the meeting. Puri responds to say that he was due to meet Hoffman in San Francisco. ‘You, my friend, make things happen. Any advice?’ Puri asked the billionaire and after his meeting with Hoffman, sent a detailed note on digital openings in India, marking the note to both Hoffman and Epstein.

“Hardeep Puri at that time was a retired diplomat. In what capacity was he organising Hoffman’s India visit?” asked Congress spokesman Pawan Khera. “Had the Indian embassy closed down? Was the Indian ambassador not there? Wasn’t Sushma Swaraj the external affairs minister? Why did Narendra Modi need the services of Hardeep Puri? And why did Narendra Modi need Epstein for Reid Hoffman’s visit?”

There is nothing in the public domain to suggest that Epstein ever visited India. In both India and the US, immigration authorities would have the information if he did. Civil aviation authorities too would have the details if the billionaire power broker ever flew into the country in his private jet.

Nor is there anything in public domain to suggest that Epstein ever invested in India or collaborated with anyone here. On the contrary, when Anil Ambani sought his help to raise $70 million — after he declared himself ‘bankrupt’ in a London court — Epstein replied that loans would be difficult and the ‘shares’ were presumably not ‘pretty’.

The references to India and Indians in the 3.5 million documents released so far, with three million more yet to be released, have created ripples nevertheless and raised uneasy questions. The most politically loaded insinuation by far is when Epstein claims to have told ‘Modi’s man’ how to go about the Indian PM’s visit to Israel in 2017, his first. Epstein claimed that he suggested the Indian PM ‘sing and dance’ for the US president while in Israel, before adding, ‘it worked’.

The cryptic and loaded messages raise uneasy questions that are yet to be answered. What was Epstein’s interest in Modi’s visit to Israel? At whose behest was he monitoring political leaders in India? Allegations that he was part of the ‘deep state’ in both the US and Israel have been made by credible sources like former CIA and Mossad officials but are unlikely to be confirmed anytime soon.

In another email exchange, Epstein refers to the ‘Middle East’ and says he was not happy about the developments there and that he held particularly strong views on the subject. Even as the context remains a mystery, it is also baffling that he would have this exchange with Anil Ambani. The only plausible explanation is that he wanted the Indian industrialist to communicate his views to the Indian ‘leadership’.

Epstein seemed to believe that Ambani was close to the Indian ‘leadership’ and was acting at their behest while seeking appointments to meet people in President Trump’s inner circle at the time, like Steve Bannon.

The Indian industrialist may have tried to convey his proximity to the political establishment in India by claiming that he was asked by the ‘leadership’ to facilitate PM Modi’s visit to Washington DC and the White House and meet Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law.

Puri’s loud claims of innocence, his multiple appearances on TV channels to attack Rahul Gandhi and his attempts to prove his own innocence have made him look worse. “I have been in touch with terrorists. Does that make me a terrorist?” he petulantly asked in one of the interviews, missing the point that nobody had accused him of being a paedophile.

Before the government shut him up, Puri did a good job of tying himself in knots — he “didn’t know who Epstein was”, was “not aware of who he was going to meet” even while he was in the car… it was his boss at the International Peace Institute who sent him to Epstein… he was part of a delegation… he “met Epstein only three or four times”… he was “pitching for investment in India” and “promoting Digital India”… Epstein’s Manhattan town house was next to his and he had lived in New York for eight years… “it was all professional”… Epstein was merely charged with having sex with an underage girl…

The denials and deflections notwithstanding, emails point to a degree of familiarity the minister is unwilling to admit or explain. In one of the emails, Puri wrote, ‘please let me know when you are back from your exotic island’. How did Puri know of the exotic island? Even if he had by then picked up details of Epstein’s past and ‘Pedo Island’, would a casual, professional acquaintance refer to it? There is no suggestion or hint that Puri ever visited the island, but he knew enough and was close enough to Epstein to sneak in a reference.

Multiple documents suggest that within months of meeting each other professionally’, Puri was being frequently invited to lunch or dinner at Epstein’s house. In January 2017, Puri wrote to Epstein, “If you are in town, I want to drop by to give you a copy of my book, Perilous Interventions.” He requested a meeting in May 2017 as well. The references and the trail suddenly stop in September 2017 when Puri became a Union minister.

In the most damning exchange between Epstein and Anil Ambani, the former offers the services of a ‘tall, Swedish blonde’ woman. Ambani responds by writing, ‘Arrange that’.

What was it all about? Were the services sought by the industrialist for himself or for someone else? Ambani is not talking, and India does not have a law to make him speak. Indian investigating agencies are not likely to launch an inquiry, and the ministry of external affairs will no doubt dismiss the “trashy ruminations of a convicted criminal” with the contempt they deserve.