Prince Andrew's Arrest: How Indian Media Turned a Royal Scandal Into a Political Battlefield
TL;DR
When former Prince Andrew was arrested on February 19, 2026, Western media focused on constitutional crisis and legal precedent. Indian media had a different story to tell. The arrest became ammunition in a raging domestic battle over the Epstein files, with opposition parties using it to corner the Modi government over its own named figures. The result? Two vastly different narratives of the same event, separated by 5,000 miles and a general election cycle.
The Arrest That Shook Two Continents Differently
On February 19, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor became the first senior British royal arrested in nearly 400 years. Thames Valley Police detained him on his 66th birthday at the Sandringham Estate on suspicion of misconduct in public office. After 11 hours, he was released "under investigation" and has been neither charged nor cleared.
The charge itself is narrowly specific. Investigators are examining emails from the early 2000s when Andrew served as a U.K. trade envoy. He allegedly forwarded Jeffrey Epstein government travel itineraries for Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Singapore, along with a confidential brief on investment opportunities in Afghanistan. If charged, the offence carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
King Charles responded with a measured statement about "the full, fair and proper process." In Britain, the conversation was about constitutional gravity, the monarchy's future, and whether Andrew might be removed from the line of succession.
In India, the conversation was about something else entirely.
Western Coverage: Constitutional Crisis First
For the BBC, NPR, PBS, and Al Jazeera, Prince Andrew's arrest was a story about institutional accountability. Their coverage circled around a few key themes.
Legal precision. Western outlets were careful to note that the arrest was about misconduct in public office, not sexual misconduct. Rolling Stone explicitly clarified that "Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest is not tied to ongoing allegations of sexual misconduct on his part."
Historical weight. Multiple outlets noted this was the most serious royal crisis since Edward VIII's abdication in 1936 or Diana's death in 1997. PBS called it unprecedented in modern British history.
Media ethics debates. A fascinating subplot emerged in British media about whether outlets could legally name Andrew before he was charged, given a 2022 UK Supreme Court ruling on anonymity during investigations.
Accountability framing. Virginia Giuffre's family said "no one is above the law, not even royalty." U.S. Congressman Thomas Massie called on the FBI to follow suit.
The tone across Western media was sober, legalistic, and focused on what the arrest meant for the monarchy as an institution.
Indian Coverage: Two Tracks, One Agenda
Indian media told the same story through a completely different lens. And the coverage split along predictable lines.
Track 1: Straight News, Borrowed Wire Copy
Outlets like Zee News English ran the story more or less as global wire services filed it. Factual, attributed to Thames Valley Police, noting the arrest and release. No major editorializing.
But even here, the emphasis shifted. Where BBC led with constitutional implications, Zee News highlighted "suggestive photos of Prince Andrew, emails about a 'beautiful' Russian woman, and an invitation for Jeffrey Epstein to have a 'private' dinner at Buckingham Palace." The facts were the same. The framing put sensational details front and centre.
Track 2: The Domestic Political Weapon
This is where Indian coverage diverged sharply. The Wire, Newslaundry, The News Minute, and National Herald didn't just report the arrest. They used it as a mirror to reflect India's own Epstein problem.
The argument was simple: if Britain can arrest a royal, why can't India even hold a parliamentary debate?
The backdrop matters. Just days before Andrew's arrest, India's Parliament had been roiled by the Epstein files. On February 11, Rahul Gandhi linked Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri to Epstein during a Lok Sabha debate. He asked why Anil Ambani wasn't in jail and claimed to know who introduced Puri to Epstein.
The government's response? Block the discussion. CPI(M) alleged the Union government "disallowed any discussion on the Epstein Files on the floor of Parliament." Puri chose to address the media at a press conference outside Parliament, calling Gandhi's allegations "buffoonery".
When Andrew's arrest broke three days later, opposition-aligned media had a ready-made narrative: the UK holds its powerful accountable; India protects them.
Track 3: The Regional Language Amplifier
Regional language coverage added another layer. Zee News Bengali ran headlines that roughly translate to descriptions of young girls at Epstein's palace, framing England as jailing a prince "to cover up shame." This went far beyond what even tabloid-style Western outlets reported, injecting a more dramatic, almost theatrical framing that conflated the misconduct-in-public-office charge with the broader sexual exploitation allegations.
This pattern is common in Indian regional media. English-language outlets maintain some editorial distance. Regional editions, competing for clicks in a fragmented market, amplify the most sensational angle.
The Indian Names That Changed the Story
The reason Prince Andrew's arrest hit differently in India has nothing to do with the British monarchy. It's because of three names in the Epstein files.
Anil Ambani communicated regularly with Epstein between 2017 and 2019. Drop Site News revealed a March 2017 message from Ambani to Epstein: "Leadership wld like ur help for me to meet jared and bannon asap." Epstein's calendar showed a meeting with Ambani in New York on May 23, 2019, after which Epstein messaged Steve Bannon: "really interesting modi meeting... His guy said that no one in wash speaks to him however his main enemy is CHINA!"
Hardeep Singh Puri exchanged emails with Epstein starting June 2014. He met Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse at least three times: February 2015, January 2016, and May 2017. One email from Puri to Epstein read: "Please let me know when you are back from your exotic island." Puri says the meetings were in his capacity at the International Peace Institute and dismissed the controversy as baseless.
Deepak Chopra and filmmaker Mira Nair also appeared in the files, though in less politically charged contexts.
India's Ministry of External Affairs dismissed references to PM Modi as "trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal." There's no evidence Modi ever met or had direct contact with Epstein. But the emails showing Ambani positioning himself as a backchannel, and Epstein claiming credit for influencing India-Israel relations, provided enough material for a political firestorm.
Why the Same Story Reads Differently
| Aspect | Western Media | Indian Media |
|---|---|---|
| Primary frame | Constitutional crisis | Political accountability |
| Key question | What does this mean for the monarchy? | Why can't India do the same? |
| Tone | Sober, legalistic | Polarized along political lines |
| Sensationalism | Restrained (English-language) | High (especially regional editions) |
| Context provided | UK legal system, historical precedent | Indian names in Epstein files, parliamentary battles |
| What gets emphasized | Misconduct in public office charge | Sexual exploitation angle (conflated) |
This divergence isn't random. It reveals how news coverage is shaped less by facts and more by what's politically useful in each market. In Britain, the story serves a narrative about no one being above the law. In India, it serves two opposing narratives simultaneously: the opposition says "look, the UK acts while India covers up," and the ruling party says "our people's connections are being exaggerated by a convicted criminal's fantasies."
The Silence That Speaks
The Wire noted that India's mainstream media initially stayed largely silent on the Epstein files, even as the story caused a global furore. This changed only when opposition politicians forced the issue into Parliament.
The pattern is familiar. Major Indian news channels, especially those perceived as sympathetic to the ruling party, covered Prince Andrew's arrest as a straightforward international story. The domestic Epstein angle was treated as a sideshow. Opposition-aligned outlets did the opposite: Andrew's arrest became the main event only because of what it implied about Indian inaction.
Neither approach tells the complete story. A reader relying solely on mainstream TV coverage would miss the Indian connection entirely. A reader following only opposition-aligned outlets would think the arrest was primarily about India.
What Readers Should Watch For
This story is still developing. Andrew hasn't been charged. The investigation could lead nowhere or to a prosecution with historic implications. For Indian readers, three things matter.
First, distinguish the charge from the broader Epstein scandal. Andrew was arrested for misconduct in public office, specifically sharing trade secrets. The sexual exploitation allegations, while central to the Epstein story, are not what this arrest is about. Indian regional media conflating the two does readers a disservice.
Second, the Indian connections are real but complex. Emails exist. Meetings happened. But Epstein was a prolific networker who exaggerated his influence. Being in his contact list doesn't automatically imply complicity in his crimes. It does, however, raise questions about judgment and the kind of access powerful people grant to convicted sex offenders.
Third, watch how coverage shifts with political winds. If India enters election season, expect the Epstein files to become campaign material regardless of any new evidence. The story's media life will follow political utility, not investigative merit.
The Bigger Picture
Prince Andrew's arrest is, at its core, a story about what happens when documents meet accountability. The UK acted because documents made inaction untenable. In India, the same documents exist, but the political will to act on them is absent, or at least fiercely contested.
How your newsroom covers this story tells you something about who that newsroom serves. And that, more than any royal scandal, is the story worth paying attention to.
Sources: NBC News, NPR, CBS News, CNN, PBS, Al Jazeera, The Wire, Newslaundry, The News Minute, National Herald, The Statesman, The Quint, Zee News, Drop Site News, Oneindia, Rolling Stone, Press Gazette
