Washington: The release of the Epstein Files by the United States Department of Justice is not merely the unsealing of a criminal scandal; it is a moment of reckoning for modern democracies. These documents raise unsettling questions about transparency, accountability, and the real architecture of power that operates behind democratic institutions. Six years after the mysterious death of Jeffrey Epstein—whose name became synonymous with immense wealth, political access, and an international network of sexual exploitation—his files are now entering the public domain, exposing how money, influence, and secrecy can corrode democratic systems from within.
In November 2025, the US Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. By January 2026, over 3.3 million pages had been made public, including emails, flight logs, contact lists, financial records, and internal reports of investigative agencies. These documents reference not only American figures but also political, business, and diplomatic circles across several countries. India’s name has also surfaced in this global web, intensifying debate and concern.
Epstein’s network was far from an isolated crime. Spanning New York, Florida, and Caribbean islands, it allegedly involved several powerful individuals from around the world. After Epstein’s death in a US jail in 2019, the files remained sealed for years. Persistent pressure from victims, investigative journalism, and judicial intervention ultimately forced the government’s hand. The first batch released in July 2025, linked to Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, had already reignited controversy. References to Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and the British royal family were widely discussed, but the newer disclosures have expanded the debate to a truly global scale.
In India, the alleged references have caused political ripples. The files reportedly include indirect mentions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, certain emails linked to industrialist Anil Ambani, and claims involving former diplomat Harsh Puri. Some 2017 email exchanges suggest that Epstein may have been consulted on US diplomatic appointments, international meetings, and influence-building strategies. One email even claims that Epstein played a role in shaping US leadership perceptions during India–Israel diplomatic engagements.
The Indian government has categorically dismissed these claims as baseless and misleading. Such denial is expected, given the gravity of the allegations. Yet the larger democratic question remains: if the accusations are unfounded, why not allow an independent and transparent investigation? In a democracy, credibility is built not merely through rebuttals, but through openness and accountability.
This controversy is not confined to India. In the US itself, allegations have emerged that successive administrations delayed the release of documents and attempted to withhold sensitive portions. Lawmakers from both Republican and Democratic parties, including Congressman Thomas Massie, have demanded judicial oversight. The episode underscores that even the world’s oldest democracy is not immune to tensions between power and transparency.
Within the Indian democratic context, the debate cuts even deeper. The political system already faces criticism over proxy leadership, corporate influence, and opaque decision-making. While women enjoy 50 per cent reservation in panchayati raj institutions, real power in many regions continues to be exercised by male proxies. This reflects a broader pattern: formal democratic structures often mask informal networks where actual decisions are made.
The Epstein Files represent the global manifestation of this pattern. On the surface, democracy appears robust; beneath it, networks of money, access, and secrecy operate quietly. In India, controversies such as the Kohinoor debate, the Rafale deal, and the electoral bonds system have all contributed to a growing trust deficit. When transparency is partial, rumours and suspicions naturally thrive.
Globally, the files expose the nexus between capitalism and power—an elite ecosystem where laws often weaken and accountability is evaded. For an emerging democracy like India, this serves as a warning. As the country integrates more deeply into globalization—attracting foreign investment, nurturing a start-up culture, and expanding international partnerships—the question arises: are India’s institutions strong enough to withstand covert influence networks?
Politically, the timing is significant. With the 2029 general elections on the horizon, such revelations could shape public discourse. It is the opposition’s duty to raise questions, but it is equally essential that Parliament engages in serious, evidence-based debate. If required, the Supreme Court should take suo motu cognisance to preserve institutional trust.
The path forward is clear. First, all India-related references in the Epstein Files must be examined through an independent, impartial investigation free from political interference. Second, there should be mandatory public disclosure of foreign contacts for constitutional authorities and senior officials. Third, the Right to Information framework must be strengthened, and political funding made fully transparent. On global platforms such as the G20, cyber and financial transparency should become central agenda items.
Ultimately, the Epstein Files are not just about one man or one scandal. They remind us that the true test of democracy lies in its willingness to question power. Suppress questions, and the mirror of democracy grows cloudy. From anganwadi workers in rural India to Parliament and global forums, accountability is the lifeblood of democratic governance.
If timely reforms are undertaken, democracy will emerge stronger. If not, secrecy and shadow networks will continue to hollow out institutions from within.
Power must be accountable—this is the fundamental mantra of a republic.
Jai Hind.
