Digital News Guru National Desk:
In a swift and unequivocal response on January 31, 2026, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) addressed a controversial reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi contained in the newly released Epstein files, dismissing it as baseless and defamatory. The statement came amid global attention on new materials disclosed by the United States Department of Justice relating to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The Indian government’s reaction underscores its intent to protect the credibility of its leadership from what it labels unfounded insinuations, even when such mentions appear in large volumes of investigative documents released by foreign authorities.
What Are the Epstein Files?
The “Epstein files” refer to a vast trove of documents, videos and images collected by U.S. law enforcement during years of investigations into Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal activities — including federal sex trafficking charges involving minors. Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, more than three million pages of records, over 2,000 videos, and roughly 180,000 images have now been made public.
Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche described this release as fulfilling a legislative mandate aimed at increased transparency. The disclosures cover materials that were previously withheld from earlier releases, spanning communications, investigative notes, and multimedia evidence.
While most of the content relates to the scope of Epstein’s criminal network, the files also include various references to public figures, diplomats, and leaders — usually mentioned in passing rather than as subjects of criminal allegations.
The Modi Reference That Sparked Controversy
A specific email message within the released Epstein files drew attention due to an apparent reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his official state visit to Israel in July 2017. The email’s content was ambiguous, but suggested an allusion to Modi’s diplomatic activities around that time.
India’s MEA, in an official statement, clarified its stance: while it acknowledged the factual nature of Modi’s 2017 visit to Israel, it rejected all other insinuations in the email as baseless. The ministry described the rest of the content as “**trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal,” and urged that such remarks be dismissed with “the utmost contempt.”
MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal emphasized that Modi’s visit to Israel was an established diplomatic engagement — marking the first time an Indian prime minister visited the country since India and Israel established full diplomatic ties in 1992 — and nothing in the email should be construed as a reflection of impropriety or wrongdoing.
Political Reactions Within India
The reference in the Epstein files quickly became a topic of discussion in Indian political circles. Opposition leaders, particularly from the Indian National Congress, seized on the mention to raise questions about Modi’s judgment and diplomatic conduct.
Congress leader Pawan Khera shared the email on social media, asserting that the purported proximity between Modi and Epstein was a matter of national concern that “raises serious questions of judgment, transparency, and diplomatic propriety.”
Khera’s statements included provocative claims drawn from the wording of the email — including phrases that he summarized as suggesting Modi had “taken advice” or had metaphorically “danced and sang” during his Israel trip for the benefit of the then-U.S. administration. These comments were used to challenge the prime minister’s global associations and to demand clarifications on the nature of his engagement with foreign leaders and actors.
However, critics of this line of attack pointed out that Epstein’s email itself was cryptic and lacked clear context. They also noted that being mentioned in an investigative file is not equivalent to being implicated in any criminal activity — particularly when the material originates from communications involving a convicted criminal whose credibility is inherently questionable.
Why the MEA Response Matters
The MEA’s forceful rebuttal holds importance on several levels:
- Diplomatic Reputation: By dismissing the references as “trashy ruminations,” the Indian government seeks to prevent unfounded narratives from influencing international perceptions of its leaders.
- Political Messaging: A rapid, unambiguous denial helps mitigate domestic political fallout and positions the government as proactive in countering misleading commentary.
- Contextual Accuracy: Stressing the official and factual basis of Modi’s 2017 Israel visit — distinct from any alleged associations with Epstein — reinforces the government’s position that diplomatic records and investigative files are separate domains.
- Public Discourse: The episode also reflects broader challenges in how large datasets, when released to the public, can generate misinterpretations or be weaponized in political debates without proper context.
Epstein Files and Public Misunderstanding
The sheer volume of material in the Epstein files means that names of global figures might appear in various documents, often without direct linkage to criminal conduct. Experts caution that inclusion or mention does not necessarily imply involvement in wrongdoing. What may surface are references due to geopolitical discussions, official events, or even incidental communications — none of which provide evidence of illegal activity.
In this case, the mention of Modi’s official diplomatic visit — already part of the public record — reflects that he was active on the global stage at a time when Epstein was also engaged, through his networks, with influential individuals. But the government’s response makes clear that such mentions should not be misconstrued as substantive allegations against the prime minister.
Conclusion
India’s Ministry of External Affairs has firmly rejected attempts to draw implications from a reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the recently released Epstein files. By characterizing the email’s assertions as irrelevant and defamatory, the Indian government aims to draw a clear line between documented official acts and unsubstantiated commentary from dubious sources. As the broader public digests these files, the situation highlights the need for careful interpretation of vast investigatory data — distinguishing verified diplomatic history from uncorroborated references that carry no evidentiary weight.
You May Also Read: Uttar Pradesh Makes Newspaper Reading Mandatory in 800 State Skill Centres
