Can beneficiaries of inequality be the ones who end it?

There is a kind of person the Western press often profiles with the headline: “The Meaning of... (name here).” Zohran Mamdani is that person.

- MANU JOSEPH

We may not know what being modern exactly is, but we know it when we see it. And Mamdani is modern, especially when he says wonderful things about social justice, race and dignity.

Many Indians, even those who can’t name their chief ministers, who believe in democracy when it's posh, have been very excited, as though it is their lives that are about to improve. Across the world, Mamdani has given hope to people who feared the end of liberal America, though New York City’s mayor-elect himself cannot run for president because he is not a ‘natural-born citizen.’ He was born in Uganda, not the US.

He is also the darling of a kind of people who are in the top 1% but write essays against inequality. Why is there derision in that line even though I was not aiming for that? Can't a beneficiary of inequality abhor inequality? Can't a beneficiary of caste abhor caste?

Can’t a man who is paid more than women for doing the same job be a feminist? Can't Mamdani, born to privilege, have contempt for it? I don’t think so.

How do good things happen? One way is when millionaires go to war against billionaires. When I say ‘millionaires’ and ‘billionaires,’ I am being metaphorical and not statistical. I mean people who are a bit rich and those who are extremely rich.

Mamdani has declared very modest assets, estimated at around $200,000. However, I am not going to waste this column persuading you he is privileged. He himself has not denied it. “I never had to want for something, and yet I knew that was not in any way the reality for most New Yorkers.”