Bhopinder Singh | Why, for Many in Bharat, Zohran Mamdani Fails the ‘Indianness’ Test

Unlike in the case of the success of most foreign politicians who are of Indian origin, or who have some links with India, and which are widely celebrated as “evidence” of the rise of India’s influence in global affairs, the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as the mayor of New York City has by and large been ignored by mainstream politicians in this country, especially those from the ruling side.

With most others, some of whom have headed governments in major European nations, it blends seamlessly with New Delhi’s bid to usurp the success of the diaspora. Historically, places with Indian indentured labour like Mauritius, the Seychelles, Surinam, Trinidad and Tobacco, etc, or even the subsequent migrations to the United Kingdom and Canada have always had politicians with Indian ethnicity. It was the arrival of the likes of Antonio Costa (Portuguese PM with Goan ancestry) or Leo Varadkar (former Taoiseach, or Prime Minister of Ireland) that signalled that leaders of Indian heritage had arrived. The phenomenon of Rishi Sunak (Britain’s former Prime Minister) was literally the cherry on the desi cake.

However, the epicentre of global politics, the United States, has had a more complex tryst with leaders of Indian parentage. There has been an undeniable surge of politicians with Indian roots and that has often led to premature appropriation and celebration of their advent on the centre stage -- even though almost all of them have tried to downplay their Indianness.

The first prominent US politician of this lot was Piyush Jindal, who later gained prominence as “Bobby Jindal”. He was to insist that he was totally assimilated in America and therefore kept a distance from his “Indianness”. He naturally did not reach out to Indian-American organisations and his infamous quote -- “We came to this country to be Americans -- not Indian-Americans, not hyphenated Americans” – exemplified these efforts. He made it well-known that he had converted to Christianity and rhetorically focused on “faith, family, freedom” to ingratiate himself to White evangelical codes. But his infamy peaked with the “whitewashing” of his official portrait as governor when it was noticed to be significantly lighter skin tone, sparking memes like “Bobby Jindal, now in HD: High Definition or Higher Definition?”. But India made light of Piyush Jindal’s obvious attempts to disassociate, smug in the assumption that one of its own was rising.

Later, the likes of Nikki Haley (Nimarata Randahawa; born to Sikh parents) was to convert to Christianity and make a failed bid for the presidency. She too downplayed her Indianness to ingratiate herself as a true-blue Republican who made common cause with Donald Trump. Recently her son, Nalin, proved to be a chip of the old block when he insisted Indians ought to be out of America and “absolutely ban H-1B” to show his “loyalty is to the US”. Similarly, another hardcore Republican who made a pitch for the presidency in 2024, Vivek Ramaswamy, distanced himself from identity politics and laid selective emphasis on his heritage and his faith. He too refrained from the hyphenation of “Indian-American” and tailored his spiel to appeal to the largely White-Christian Republicans with extremely “red-neck” positions. Even the less railing persona of Kamala Harris was predicated on emphasising her Black identity more assertively, given the much larger Black voter base. Her comment, “My mother understood very well that she was raising two Black daughters”, was telling of the narrative that she sought to stitch in the public imagination. Others like Kash Patel (Kashyap Pramod Patel), the current FBI director, have shown little or no pride in their Indianness and their policy positions are openly anti-immigration and overtly Trumpian. The curious case of Indians readily warming up to a Tulsi Gabbard due to her Hindu faith is yet another case of unwarranted appropriation even though she is a White Caucasian individual with no

biological roots in India.

Perhaps the only prominent politician in recent times who has unapologetically owned and taken pride in his Indian roots has been Zohran Mamdani. Personifying the secular spirit of the “Idea of India”, he has openly claimed: “I’m proud of my Hindu heritage … and proud to be someone who will be the first Muslim mayor of this city, and … hold all of those things together”. Even his acceptance speech was laced with a quote from Jawaharlal Nehru’s historic “Tryst with Destiny” speech, and the surreal “Dhoom Machaley” soundtrack that was played at his victory celebration cocked a snook at all those who thought that the Indian identity wasn’t enough “it” for New York! Even his interpretation of his personal faith wasn’t puritanical or regressive, but decidedly “Indian” in that his campaign saw him hopping into gay bars, dancing in night clubs, differentiating a New York Jew from an Israeli, and basically celebrating multi-culturalism as a strength and not as majoritarian politics.

However, Mr Mamdani’s political ideology of secularism and inclusivity does not endear him to the right-wing, conservative or majoritarian politicians, across the globe. As a natural Nehruvian in thought, and one with familial wounds in Gujarat, his politics clashes with that of the ruling establishment in India -- so much so that a “motor mouth” actress-politician shockingly said that he “sounded Pakistani”. Seemingly, it is his personal faith that is the issue for many in India. That he brazenly adopts the Indianness of our founding fathers, with the hipness of “Dhoom Machaley”, simply jars many people in this country. The regrettable lack of congratulatory messages from India for New York’s next mayor says something about our own notions and expectations of Indianness.