In today’s ideologically polarised world, Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the New York City mayoral election is both news for celebration and for mourning. Mamdani’s energetic door to door campaigning must have reminded every student of American history of the whistle-stop campaigns of the mid-19th century, when the introduction of railroads allowed politicians to hop from one city to another on the same day.

In India, the pro-Hindutva forces must be extremely unhappy. Already, some WhatsApp groups are spreading the lie that soon New York City will witness namaz prayers on its streets, and that Sharia law will soon be introduced for Muslim New Yorkers.

In contrast, the anti-Hindutva forces are visualizing in the event the beginning of the end of the Modi era, even though the Mamdani episode has happened more than eight thousand miles away.

The types of global issues that Mamdani had raised during his campaign, such as the Israeli government’s genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, or that the Palestinians deserve a state of their own, are also the shared thinking of most Indian liberals, though they fear to express these views openly if they reside in BJP-ruled states.

Although there is little difference between Donald Trump and Narendra Modi insofar as their broader political outlook is concerned, an (indirect) political defeat for Trump at the hands of an immigrant American, that too a Muslim, can well reinvigorate the anti-Modi forces in India, particularly because both Trump and Modi are identified so much with Muslim-bashing.

There is, however, a limit to this imagination. Their democratic identities notwithstanding, American and Indian polities are fundamentally different. This difference is rooted in their dissimilar historical and political experiences. Let us identify them before we try to draw any larger insights.

One, an American president must be a natural born US citizen. Hence, howsoever popular Mamdani may become, he cannot ever run for the presidency. In contrast, an Italian-born Sonia Gandhi almost became India’s prime minister in 2004. That she chose to sacrifice her ambitions in favour of Manmohan Singh is another matter.

Two, there is a vast difference between the American and Indian federal models, a difference that is rooted in their contrasting historical origins. I have dwelt upon this point in my earlier essays, where I trace the origins of America’s peculiar electoral system and offer comparisons on the growing centralisation of power in both polities.

Three, to compare a presidential system such as America’s with a parliamentary system such as India’s is comparing apples and oranges. Unlike India, the presidency (that is, the executive) in America is not responsible to the legislature (the Congress). In India, the prime minister and her/his cabinet are responsible to the parliament.

There are many instances in American history when the President and the Congress belonged to two different parties. Some American scholars, including the late Charles Jones of the Brookings Institution, characterised America as ‘a split-party democracy’. This author recalls attending Jones’ lectures in the Salzburg Seminar several decades ago. Jones addressed the implications of such ‘split-party’ outcomes for governance and political stability, taking a relatively equivocal view of the phenomenon.

Four, much of America’s politics is rooted in its changing frontiers, the so-called Westward Expansion. The United States started off as a narrow strip on the Atlantic coast consisting of just 13 states, but within less than a century it became a huge nation spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Its territory even spread to include the Hawaiian Islands and Alaska (purchased from Russia in the mid-19th century). Trump is now contemplating making Greenland America’s 51st state.

Compared to America, India virtually started off as it is now, although the inclusion of the Princely States into the Indian Union is a fascinating story, covered most recently in Narayani Basu’s biography of V.P. Menon.

Thus, while American federalism represents an integrationist model (Note: the original United States had 13 states, now there are 50; also no American state has ever been split into two or more), that of India represents a segregationist model. Note that at the time of the introduction of the Indian Constitution in 1950, the then Indian states were divided into four groups A, B, C, and D, but now there are 28 states.

The British rule essentially was a unitary rule, particularly prior to the Government of India Act, 1935. Indian federalism was largely structured upon this Act.

Hope for immigrants

We can add several other differences between the evolution of the American and Indian polities, but for the moment this may suffice to contextualise the Mamdani phenomenon.

One, Mamdani’s victory has shown that the American dream is not yet over and that it can still be lived. Against all that Trump’s MAGA rhetoric represents, immigrant Americans can still hope that a majority of the American public will embrace them. The massive success of the Indian-American community consisting of just over 1% of America’s population underlines the point.

They have a much-needed shot in the arm now, especially given the humiliation they suffered only a few months ago when several illegal immigrants of Indian origin were deported to India with fetters on their legs.

Two, the state of New York may not be a microcosm of America, but as one of the original 13 colonies its shadow on American politics is much larger than most other states. The Mamdani win in the biggest city in America, therefore, will have a much louder reverberation on national politics than we might think.

Three, on the negative side, capitalism has deep roots in America. Howsoever attractive Mamdani’s promises – free bus service, a rent freeze, free medical aid for the poor, and state-run fair price shops – may sound, they will face insurmountable road blocks both in the NY State legislature, and then in Congress and Senate, the latter two of which are controlled by the Republicans. And we haven’t even begun to account for the hostility that is sure to emanate from the White House! How this likely tussle will influence the mid-term elections next year is something Americans and the rest of the world will follow very closely.

In any case, there is little doubt that Mamdani has emerged as a beacon of hope for all who hate seeing the systematic decline of welfarism and the corresponding rise of an unabashed capitalism. For New Yorkers Mamdani is their new mayor, but for the rest of us he stands for much more.

Partha S. Ghosh author retired as professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.

This article went live on November twelfth, two thousand twenty five, at thirty-seven minutes past nine in the morning.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.