Congress Intensifies Attack, Demands Union Minister's Resignation Over Epstein Links
The political landscape in India witnessed a significant escalation on Friday as the Congress party formally demanded the resignation of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. This demand stems from allegations concerning his connections to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, a figure convicted for serious crimes including sex trafficking of minors.
Congress Leader Pawan Khera's Strong Accusations
Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera addressed the media, articulating the party's firm stance. "Clearly, the Congress party is demanding the resignation of Hardeep Singh Puri. This person has no right to remain in his position," Khera asserted. He accused the minister of dishonesty, stating, "In the last 48 hours, he has only lied." Khera emphasized that the party plans to highlight this issue to the public, framing it as evidence of a compromised government associated with a notorious individual like Epstein.
Minister Puri's Detailed Clarification on Meetings
The controversy gained momentum after Minister Puri, during a press conference on Wednesday, acknowledged having met Jeffrey Epstein "three or four times" over an eight-year period. He described these interactions as strictly professional, occurring during his tenure as India's Ambassador to the United Nations and in subsequent roles with the International Peace Institute.
Puri responded to allegations raised by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, clarifying that these meetings were limited and already documented in public records following the release of millions of emails by US authorities. "Any contact I had with him has no connection to the serious allegations of sexual abuse filed by victims," Puri stated, stressing that his interactions were unrelated to Epstein's criminal activities.
He provided context, explaining that his former superior at the International Peace Institute, Terje Rod-Larsen, knew Epstein, and meetings occurred as part of official delegations. Puri maintained that all engagements were professional and predated his entry into the Union Cabinet in 2017.
Congress Rejects Explanations, Raises Further Questions
However, the Congress party firmly rejected Puri's explanations. Pawan Khera raised pointed questions regarding a 2014 email exchange included in documents released by the US Department of Justice. He questioned why Puri referred to Epstein as a "friend" in an email and sought "advice" from him if their association was merely incidental.
In a social media post, Khera accused Puri of trivializing Epstein's crimes, arguing that describing the conviction as "soliciting favours of a woman who was underage" downplays the gravity of sexual exploitation of a minor.
Rahul Gandhi's Allegations and Puri's Dismissal
The controversy originated after Rahul Gandhi claimed to possess "verified information" and alleged that Department of Justice files on Epstein name Hardeep Puri. Gandhi also suggested broader pressure on the government in the context of international developments, including the India-US trade deal.
Minister Puri dismissed these remarks as "baseless allegations," characterizing parts of Gandhi's parliamentary speech as having "elements of buffoonery" and "entertainment value." He insisted that his name appearing in released documents does not imply any wrongdoing and reiterated that his meetings were unrelated to the criminal charges against Epstein.
Escalating Political Confrontation and Future Implications
This exchange has triggered a sharp political confrontation between the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition Congress. The Congress is demanding accountability and transparency, while the government maintains that there is no wrongdoing on the part of the minister.
As the row escalates, the Congress has declared its intention to continue raising the matter publicly, ensuring it remains a focal point in political discourse. The government, meanwhile, stands by Minister Puri, defending his professional record and integrity.
This development underscores the intense scrutiny and political maneuvering surrounding high-profile figures, with potential implications for public perception and governance credibility as both sides prepare for further debates and disclosures.
