Zohran Mamdani: A New York Politician Who Built His Brand on Attacking India, Modiji, and Even Indians Themselves
- MGMMTeam
- Nov 24
- 5 min read
The Manufactured Persona of a “Victim-Politician”
Zohran Kwame Mamdani is not merely a New York Assemblyman; he is a political personality carefully curated for American progressive spaces. Instead of focusing on crime, housing, affordability, or the daily concerns of his constituents, Mamdani has reinvented himself as the Western interpreter of Indian politics — the man who must lecture 1.4 billion Indians on morality, democracy, and pluralism.
Again and again, he frames himself through a singular identity: “I am Muslim.” He repeats it in rallies, speeches, and interviews, weaving a personal narrative of Muslim “persecution,” both in the U.S. and especially in India. This identity is not merely descriptive — it is weaponised. His political brand hinges on portraying Muslims as globally endangered, positioning himself as their transnational defender, and using India as the stage on which he performs this activism.
This obsession, however, has come at a cost: Mamdani has drifted far from representing New Yorkers and instead turned India into his favourite punching bag.
Eric Trump Enters the Story — And the Explosion Follows
The latest controversy escalated when Eric Trump, son of U.S. President Donald Trump, accused Zohran Mamdani of “hating the Indian population.” Eric Trump, a businessman, political figure, and executive vice president of the Trump Organization, rarely comments on niche state-level politicians. But Mamdani’s consistent pattern caught his attention.
And what he said struck a deep nerve.
According to Eric Trump, Mamdani does not simply oppose Modiji or the BJP — he resents Indians themselves, viewing them as morally compromised simply for voting for a leader he personally dislikes. This statement did not surprise anyone familiar with Mamdani’s rhetoric. Instead, it confirmed what many Indians in America had long sensed but hesitated to say aloud.
When Political Activism Becomes a Sermon Against an Entire Population
Mamdani’s speeches, op-eds, and rally appearances all carry the same undertone. He views India’s majority population as misguided, intolerant, and responsible for what he calls “oppression.” He repeatedly claims that pluralism in India is “dead,” implying that the majority of Indians — not the government — have chosen bigotry as a national value.
In his worldview, India is not simply a nation with a government he dislikes. India is a society fundamentally broken — and Indians are the ones who broke it.
Every time he attacks India’s democratic institutions, he indirectly accuses the Indian voter. Every time he invokes 2002, twenty years later, he suggests most Indians are complicit or indifferent. His moral lectures target not policies but people.
This is why Eric Trump’s remark felt less like a political jab and more like an honest observation of a politician who cannot distinguish between a government and a nation.
The “I Am Muslim” Narrative and the Politics of Perpetual Victimhood
A significant piece of Mamdani’s identity-based politics is his repeated declaration: “I am Muslim.” He uses it as a framing device — that Muslims everywhere are oppressed, that India has become anti-Muslim, and that his role is to defend Muslims on American soil by condemning India at every opportunity.
But what is particularly revealing is how Mamdani selectively amplifies voices and organisations that feed this narrative.
He regularly appears with or receives support from:
– Islamic advocacy groups aligned with progressive-left circles
– Activist networks openly critical of India’s counterterrorism policies
– Organisations lobbying against India’s stance on Kashmir
– Groups that frame global politics entirely through a Muslim-victimhood lens
In these spaces, Mamdani thrives — not because of policy expertise, but because he plays the role of the Muslim voice condemning India. He has positioned himself as the “go-to” legislator for any coalition that wants to accuse India of persecution.
This ecosystem elevates him, and he, in turn, amplifies them — creating a mutually reinforcing cycle built on portraying India as an oppressor.
The War Criminal Accusation: A Line He Crossed Long Ago
Mamdani’s repeated branding of Narendra Modi as a “war criminal” is not accidental. It is political theatre designed to shock, provoke, and rally Western progressive-Islamic groups behind him. But beneath this inflammatory claim sits a deeper implication: that Indian voters willingly elected and re-elected such a man.
To accept Mamdani’s rhetoric is to accept that Indian voters are morally corrupt or incapable of making humane choices. This is not critique. It is contempt.
His language is designed to indict not just leaders but the people themselves.
A Politician Who Talks About India More Than New York
It is astonishing how a lawmaker from Queens invests more energy into analysing India than solving rising crime, collapsing affordability, or public school challenges in his own district. India, for Mamdani, is not a homeland or a constituency — it is a political stage prop.
He does not speak of India’s technological revolution, its global growth, its thriving democracy, or its diverse social fabric. He speaks of India only to condemn it.
Because condemnation is what gives him political relevance in the circles he wants to please.
Why Indian-Americans Feel Targeted
The Indian diaspora in the U.S. largely avoids political extremism. They want stability, respect, and opportunities. They do not mind criticism of Indian policies — but they do object to being moralised, insulted, or stereotyped.
Mamdani’s rhetoric, especially his sweeping remarks about the “Indian population,” has created discomfort even among those who do not support Modiji. They feel reduced to caricatures, cast as villains simply for being Indian.
When a New York politician repeatedly paints Indians as enablers of intolerance, it inevitably alienates the very community he claims to represent.
The MGMM Outlook
Zohran Mamdani has crafted an identity not as a New York legislator but as a self-appointed guardian of “Muslim victimhood,” using India as his preferred backdrop for political theatre. Instead of addressing crime, affordability, or governance in Queens, he projects himself into Indian politics, constantly repeating “I am Muslim” as a weaponised political identity. In doing so, he portrays Muslims worldwide as perpetual victims and India as the chief oppressor, aligning himself with selective Islamic advocacy networks, Kashmir-focused lobbies, and progressive-left groups that elevate anti-India rhetoric. His repeated attacks on India’s institutions, democracy, and majority population go far beyond criticism of policy — they amount to portraying Indian society itself as morally bankrupt. Even his labelling of Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “war criminal” is less an ideological stance and more a calculated performance designed to shock Western audiences while indirectly indicting the Indian voter. This pattern is exactly why Eric Trump’s observation — that Mamdani seems to “hate the Indian population” itself — resonated so strongly within the diaspora.
Over time, Mamdani’s political persona has drifted into open contempt for Indian identity, Indian democracy, and Indians themselves, alienating even those who do not support the current government. His speeches, rallies, and op-eds consistently frame India as a failed pluralistic society and Indians as architects of intolerance, thereby reducing 1.4 billion people to stereotypes that suit his political image. The irony is that he speaks about India far more than about New York, using condemnation of India as a shortcut to relevance within U.S. progressive-Islamic circles. For many Indian-Americans, this has crossed a line: they see a legislator who prefers moral sermons over facts, who collaborates with ideological groups hostile to India, and who weaponises identity to build a career detached from his constituents. The result is a politician whose obsession with attacking India reveals far more about his own insecurities and ambitions than about the country he lectures — a politician who is not merely anti-Modiji, but increasingly anti-Indian in tone, posture, and conviction.
Sources:
Comments