Puri’s Epstein link is in the Prime Minister’s court

The recent visit of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Reliance Industries' petroleum refinery at Jamnagar has raised questions about the curious contrast in how people associated with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted American sex offender, are treated.

Accompanied by the US ambassador to India, Rubio visited the world's largest single-site oil refinery, where he met industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his son. The two showed him around the sprawling facility. What actually transpired during their discussions is not known.

It would be premature to speculate about their purpose, including whether the talks concerned the processing of Venezuelan crude oil. But the visit assumes significance against the backdrop of the controversy surrounding Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri's association with Epstein.

There is no evidence that Rubio deliberately avoided meeting Puri by skipping a visit to Delhi before going to Jamnagar. Yet, the contrast is striking.

A photograph showing Puri in conversation with Epstein has brought renewed attention to the minister's association with a man whose criminal record was known long before his death in 2019.

Puri has maintained that he met Epstein only a few times, as part of a group. The photograph has added to the questions he must answer.

The issue is not whether every person who met Epstein was involved in his crimes. Such a conclusion would be unjustified. The question is why a senior Indian diplomat, who later became a union minister, maintained contact with a man whose reputation was deeply tainted.

Epstein was not an obscure figure whose criminal activities came to light only after his death. In 2008, he pleaded guilty to offences involving a minor in Florida and served a prison sentence, although the punishment was widely criticised as excessively lenient.

He was arrested again in 2019 on federal sex-trafficking charges and died in a New York jail while awaiting trial. The subsequent release of documents concerning his activities revealed the extent of his connections with wealthy and influential people across the world.

Those who occupy positions of responsibility have an obligation to explain the nature and purpose of their association with him, particularly when the relationship continued after his criminal record became public.

Puri is not an ordinary political figure. He has had a distinguished career in the Indian Foreign Service and served as India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 2009 to 2013. After retiring, he joined the BJP and entered active politics.

He lost the 2019 Lok Sabha election from Amritsar but subsequently entered the Rajya Sabha from Uttar Pradesh and became a union minister.

It is precisely because of his diplomatic background that the controversy deserves a clear explanation. India has an experienced diplomatic service and an embassy in Washington staffed by officials capable of advancing the country's interests. If Puri maintained contact with a Union Minister to promote India's interests, the public is entitled to know what those interests were and what role Epstein could have played.

The explanation that the association was connected with Digital India has raised questions rather than settled them. Launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in July 2015, the programme sought to expand digital infrastructure, improve internet connectivity and make government services more accessible through technology.

Epstein's known activities and sources of influence do not readily explain how he could have made a meaningful contribution to such an initiative. If the association had a legitimate purpose, Puri should be able to describe it clearly.

The controversy has also drawn attention to reported email exchanges between the two men. The Congress has demanded an explanation for the 62 email exchanges attributed to the two men between 2014 and 2017. The reported volume of correspondence makes it reasonable to ask what the relationship involved and why it continued.

The distinction between legal guilt and political accountability is often forgotten. A court determines whether the evidence establishes an offence. Political leaders must also consider whether a minister's conduct, or the unresolved questions surrounding it, has become a liability for the administration. A minister need not be convicted of a crime before questions about his suitability for office can arise.

The government's response is equally important. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not sought Puri's resignation. This raises a legitimate question: why should a minister whose association with Epstein has become a matter of public debate continue in office without providing a satisfactory explanation?

India's treatment of Bill Gates during his recent appearance at an international event in Delhi also illustrates how damaging the Epstein connection has become. Gates, who has acknowledged meeting Epstein, was reportedly asked not to address the gathering.

The episode demonstrates the dilemma faced by organisers and institutions: even when criminal wrongdoing has not been established, an association with Epstein can overshadow an event and damage its credibility.

The consequences are not confined to India or the United States. The controversy has affected influential people in business, academia, politics and public life. Many have chosen to resign from their positions.

Puri's Rajya Sabha term is due to end in November, and the BJP has not renominated him. Even if he ceases to be a Member of Parliament, he can remain a minister for up to six months under the Constitution.

Should Puri wait until his term ends, or until the controversy subsides, before addressing the questions surrounding his association with Epstein? That would be an inadequate response from someone who once represented India at the highest levels of international diplomacy.

Resignation does not necessarily amount to an admission of guilt. It can be an acknowledgment that public office demands a higher standard of accountability.

The resignation of former Union minister M.J. Akbar following allegations of sexual misconduct during the #MeToo movement illustrated how a controversy can make a minister's continuation in office untenable, even when questions of evidence and legal responsibility remain distinct.

A government cannot demand accountability from its opponents while dismissing questions about its own ministers as politically motivated attacks. Nor should the opposition pronounce anyone guilty merely because his name appears in documents or photographs connected with a notorious criminal.

Puri deserves the opportunity to explain himself fully. He should clarify the purpose of his meetings and correspondence with Epstein, disclose the nature of their association and answer the questions raised by the available evidence. If his explanations are convincing, they should be judged on their merits.

If he cannot provide satisfactory answers, he should step aside rather than allowing the controversy to damage the government he serves.

The issue is ultimately larger than one minister's political future. It concerns the credibility of public institutions and the standards expected of those entrusted with national responsibilities. India has every reason to protect its international reputation, but that protection must begin with transparency at home.

A minister's duty is not merely to remain in office as long as the law permits. It is to ensure that his presence does not undermine public confidence in the institution he represents.

Puri must now choose between continuing to defend his position without resolving the doubts surrounding it and offering a full, candid explanation that allows the public to judge the matter fairly. The ball is in the Prime Minister’s court.