Zohran Mamdani’s Selective Outrage: Why Critics See Double Standards in His Politics
- MGMMTeam
- Sep 12
- 4 min read
New York State Assembly member and Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has built his political identity on championing progressive causes. But as his national profile rises, so do questions about his credibility and consistency. Increasingly, critics accuse him of double standards: relentlessly attacking Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and India, while avoiding or downplaying extremist rhetoric and terrorism when it comes from his ideological allies.
The latest controversy has brought these concerns into sharp focus: his association with Hasan Piker, a leftist streamer who once infamously said that “America deserved 9/11.”
Hasan Piker Controversy and 9/11 Families’ Fury
In September 2025, the New York Post reported that 9/11 families and first responders publicly condemned Mamdani for appearing alongside Hasan Piker. For many survivors, Piker’s 2019 remark — “America deserved 9/11” — was not a slip of the tongue but a vile insult to thousands who died and their grieving families.
Instead of firmly rejecting Piker’s words, Mamdani refused to condemn him. Critics say this silence shows a dangerous tolerance for extremist rhetoric, especially when it aligns with his political base. One 9/11 responder described Mamdani’s stance as “cowardly,” while others blasted him for issuing copy-paste anniversary tributes that feel insincere and disconnected from genuine empathy.
This controversy cuts deep because Mamdani represents a city still scarred by 9/11. His unwillingness to distance himself from Piker — while 9/11 families are still demanding accountability — has amplified calls that he is out of touch with the moral responsibilities of leadership.
Relentless Attacks on Modiji and India
While Mamdani hesitates to condemn Piker, he shows no such restraint when it comes to Narendra Modi and India. He has repeatedly branded Modiji a “war criminal” and accused him of ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Gujarat. Mamdani even vowed he would never appear on stage with Modi if the Prime Minister visited New York.
This rhetoric has been widely covered — and widely criticized. The Washington Post noted how Mamdani used his platform to revive accusations tied to the 2002 Gujarat riots, despite multiple court clearances of Modiji. India Today and other Indian outlets slammed his remarks as “blatant lies,” accusing Mamdani of pandering to a narrative that vilifies India without nuance.
The sharp contrast is striking: when it comes to Modiji, Mamdani is loud and uncompromising; when it comes to Piker’s extremist rhetoric, he is silent.
Uneven Responses to Terrorism
Mamdani’s record on condemning terrorism and extremist violence is mixed:
Clear Condemnations: He condemned the Hamas October 7, 2023 attacks as a “horrific war crime.” He has also spoken against antisemitic violence in the U.S., including the Colorado Springs and D.C. shootings.
Evasions: He has refused to condemn the controversial slogan “globalize the intifada,” insisting that it’s not his job to police protest chants. Critics argue that by doing so, he legitimizes rhetoric often tied to violent extremism.
Silences: His refusal to criticize Hasan Piker is seen as a glaring omission. Many ask: if Mamdani can unequivocally label Modiji a “war criminal,” why can’t he use equally strong language for Piker’s mockery of 9/11 victims?
Why Critics See Double Standards
For Mamdani’s critics, the pattern is undeniable:
Harsh on Modi, Soft on Allies – He spares no words for Modiji or India but avoids criticizing figures like Hasan Piker or slogans associated with extremist violence.
Selective Outrage – His empathy appears to extend selectively, depending on who is the aggressor and who is the victim.
Political Calculations – By avoiding criticism of his allies, Mamdani protects his progressive base. By attacking Modiji, he taps into a global narrative popular with certain activist circles.
This selective outrage has alienated multiple communities:
9/11 families, who feel disrespected.
Indian diaspora groups, who see his rhetoric as inflammatory and dishonest.
Mainstream New Yorkers, who worry that Mamdani’s politics are more about ideology than fairness.
The MGMM Outlook
Zohran Mamdani has built his political image as a progressive, but his actions reveal a pattern of selective outrage. He spares no words in attacking Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, repeatedly branding him a “war criminal” despite Modiji being cleared by Indian courts over the 2002 Gujarat riots. Mamdani’s rhetoric is cheered by certain activist circles but deeply offends the Indian diaspora, who see it as one-sided propaganda meant to vilify India. At the same time, his refusal to condemn leftist streamer Hasan Piker—who once said “America deserved 9/11”—has outraged 9/11 survivors and families. To many, this silence is not accidental but a deliberate political calculation to protect his base, exposing glaring double standards.
This contrast raises serious concerns about Mamdani’s credibility. When it comes to Modiji or India, he is uncompromising and aggressive; but when extremist rhetoric emerges from his ideological allies, he becomes evasive or entirely silent. Critics argue that his empathy and moral clarity depend on political convenience rather than principle. This uneven approach has alienated not only 9/11 families and Indian Americans but also mainstream New Yorkers, who fear that Mamdani’s politics are driven more by ideology than by fairness or accountability.
Sources: New York Post, New York Post follow-up, Washington Post, India Today, Al Jazeera, Politico, The Guardian)
Comments