Social media platforms in India and those used by Indians abroad by are abuzz with exultations over Zohran Mamdani’s position as a frontrunner in New York city’s mayoral election. Reactions combine a mixture of ethnic pride and political relief in the face of the resurgence of Right-wing populism.

Comments from members of the Indian diaspora speak of a new era for the American Left in “the greatest city in the world” (oddly, these leave out the bit about American actions around the world that have produced its greatness).

There is also happiness at being a South Asian in America. Some commentators talk of how Mamdani’s hybrid familial circumstances – parents and spouse from different religious and ethnic backgrounds – being the reason for his beliefs and framework for the future actions he will pursue. But, most significantly, many speak of his successful campaign as foreshadowing what can be achieved in other parts of the world through adherence to socialist and liberal values.

At the heart of the reactions to the mayoral election in New York is the idea that American liberalism – in this version, one articulated through “socialist” narratives about improving living conditions for New York’s poor – is, somehow, good for the rest of the world. More circumspect appraisals of Mamdani’s position as the Democrat nominee to the city’s high office are seen as a form of unproductive carping that only serve to undermine progressive politics.

A milestone

Mamdani’s success is, on many accounts, an important milestone for American politics. However, there is a little historical evidence that American liberal values have translated into anything more than well-being for the American public. That in itself is not a bad thing, except that American political leaders of the liberal persuasion have pursued liberalism at home while actively promoting totalitarianism and violence around the world.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Democrats and Republicans differ primarily on the nature of their domestic political and cultural environment. They are united in their illiberalism towards the rest of the world.

To imagine that Mamdani’s emergence as the Democrat’s (presumptive) mayoral candidate is a win for something called “global liberalism” or “global socialism” is to ignore the fact that western liberalism has had very specific consequences, primarily restricted to the western world.

That is, the thinking that the New York’s mayoral election holds lessons for how liberals and socialists in other parts of the world might further their own political campaigns – and not give up in the face of overwhelming odds – might hold little water.

While anti-authoritarianism should be a universal value, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all strategy against it. And, much more importantly, there may be little to learn how to counter it from the Democrats. We should not forget that the grounds for the Vietnam war were laid during the “liberal” era of the Kennedy presidency.

Democrat versions of liberalism cannot be disentangled from the party’s broader positions, including its unflinching support for Israel in its continuing violence against the Palestinian people. The copiously documented history of the occupation of Palestinian lands since 1948 through the illiberalism of Zionist policy has had almost no effect on the key manifestation of American political liberalism, the Democrats.

To rejoice in a political outcome in one part of the world that accords with our way of thinking is entirely reasonable. But to what is extent should it be celebrated, as it has been, as a sign of what might be possible in other parts? For the Indian case, it may mostly be – well-meaning – a wishful thinking.

While it is true that Indians want better roads, access to decent housing at affordable rates and good education that is not exclusively accessible by the well off, they are not all against the idea that private capital should provide it.

Whether among the rich or the poor, private schools, for example, are now favoured means of education. And, currently, private universities find strong support among various sections of the population. Apart from select circles, and for significant historical reasons, socialism is largely out of fashion.

This has to do with the history of the Indian state and there is little in the American experience that has much relevance for how to understand the Indian experience of the state and its relations with marginalised. No matter how debatable, the lack of trust in the state’s capacity for improving people’s lives has to do with the perception that – apart from aberrations such as Kerala – its actions have benefitted a tiny section of the population.

For the rest, the state has been a figure of arbitrary actions and lack of welfare. This also lies at the heart of the appeal of contemporary Right-wing populism that combines religious-nationalism with the promise of market led welfare.

The appeal of the market in India and the lack of appeal for state-led socialism can only be comprehended through an understanding of the historical nature of the Indian state. It is telling that though market-led welfare is applauded, the state is still so greatly feared that, given the choice, many would like to join government service. This is one way of protecting oneself from its arbitrariness. There is no equivalent of this is in the American experience of the state.

As a sign of acceptance of progressive thought in one part of the world, Mamdani’s “victory” is, indeed, laudable. To consider is as a blueprint for what could happen elsewhere is to misunderstand the limited nature of American liberal thought and practice as well as deny the necessity for thinking about the how beliefs about liberalism and conservatism develop in the world beyond the United States.

Of course, none of this has to do with any claims that Zohran Mamdani himself might have made about the implications of his success for the wider world. It is just odd that while, on the one hand, we seek to resist the idea that western political and cultural experience are universally applicable, on the other, we go along with the idea that it could be.

Sanjay Srivastava is Distinguished Research Professor in the department of anthropology and sociology at SOAS University of London.