His cosmopolitan eliteness and the particularities of the American political context notwithstanding, Zohran Mamdani’s campaign for New York City mayor can offer valuable insights for Opposition politics in India. Mr. Mamdani refused to disparage right-wing voters as irrational bigots. He responded to Donald Trump’s 2024 victory by listening to Trump supporters with empathy, asking them about their core grievances. This honestly acknowledged some reasons why working-class people voted for Mr. Trump. Mr. Mamdani then developed a cogent, concrete economic programme addressing these grievances.

An economic agenda

The bedrock of Mr. Mamdani’s agenda remains economic. He repeatedly returned to issues of rent, free and fast buses, and universal childcare. On this foundation, he built a national vision for American society, polity and culture which is liberal, democratic, egalitarian, pluralist, internationalist, and humane. Here, he is unlike those Indian progressives who prioritise a national vision of communal harmony at the expense of communicating a concrete, credible economic agenda. Equally, unlike India’s ‘centrist’ forces, such as the Aam Aadmi Party or some economic pundits, Mr. Mamdani avoided the reverse mistake: of prioritising economics while side-stepping crucial questions of ideology and nationalism. Mr. Mamdani realises that politics is not narrowly about material interests, but also values and culture. He was unafraid of defending his cultural, social and political vision of the U.S. against right-wing attacks. And due to his own clarity about it, he could credibly connect his vision to the experiences of different voters.

Mr. Mamdani consistently advanced a multi-layered political narrative. He did not frame it negatively as anti-Trump. Apart from the mayoral debates, his campaign was not anti-Andrew Cuomo either. It was a realisation that politics centred around a laundry list of your political opponent’s wrongs works only as a supplementary narrative. Mr. Mamdani used good-faith logic, reason and evidence to show how his vision is more beneficial for the people; as a corollary, he showed how his opponents’ vision would harm them.

Refusing to contemptuously ‘call out’ his right-wing and centrist critics or sceptics, he instead ‘called them in’ to his politics. Such politics is rare and much needed. To reach these voters, Mr. Mamdani gave measured interviews to ‘centrist’ media such as The New York Times and conservative media such as Fox News. This reflects that engagement need not mean complicity but can express a commitment to the democratic politics of persuasion.

Mr. Mamdani’s careful engagement with detractors showed awareness that building coalitions is indispensable to winning power and realising one’s political agenda. Despite his socialist tilt, he won endorsements from hyper-cautious ‘centrist’ Democrats like Kathy Hochul; consistent advice from a former Obama administration official; and engagement from business leaders.

The same political acumen about the need to build a coalition was evident when he re-calibrated some of his positions in response to his opponents’ concerns. To ‘take along’ police officers and voters concerned about public safety, he retreated from his labelling of the New York City Police Department as racist and his position on ‘defunding’ the police. Despite leading among Jewish New Yorkers, he sought to reassure his Jewish opponents by discouraging the phrase ‘Globalise the Intifada’. These shifts do not signify an abandonment or dilution of his core ideals, but the realisation that small, meaningful political compromises — on account of political complexity and the desire to be as fair to others as possible — are required to build the coalition needed to realise his core vision. Unlike the Indian Left, Mr. Mamdani understands that small-order compromises are possible while substantially maintaining ideological authenticity; that they are crucial to winning power which, in turn, is key to enforcing ideology; and that ideological purism breeds sectarianism, which is politically self-defeating.

Effective communication

It is sometimes argued that the Indian Left’s failure results from a structural problem: the lack of support from capitalists in the context where money wins elections. Rather than offering excuses, Mr. Mamdani accepted this constraint as a brute fact, and worked around it. Apart from coalition-building, he sought to overcome this constraint through door-to-door canvassing and social media. Both were central to him receiving small donations directly from individuals. Key to this was effective political communication. Instead of relying on outmoded political languages of the 20th century, his social media videos creatively unpacked complex political issues in an accessible and relevant manner. They also combined consistent political messaging with food, emotion, and humour that humanised Mr. Mamdani. The combination of ‘message discipline’ and humanity made him appear committed, sincere and relatable, thus winning the trust of voters deeply disillusioned with most establishment politicians.

Mr. Mamdani’s governance will require subsequent assessment. Relatively inexperienced, he must now prove he can implement his agenda, meet political challenges, and do so without alienating unlikely allies or worsening polarisation. But meanwhile, potential lessons may be drawn from his historic victory.

Vanya Vaidehi Bhargav, Assistant Professor of Social Sciences (History), National Law School of India University, Bengaluru