Narendra Modi and Benjamin Netanyahu shouldn’t expect a red carpet welcome the next time they visit New York City.

At 34, Zohran Mamdani is set to take office on January 1, 2026, becoming New York’s youngest mayor in over 100 years — and the city’s first Muslim leader to hold the post.

Growing up in New York after early childhood in Uganda, Mamdani gravitated toward activism as a student, including involvement with Students for Justice in Palestine. That global orientation has remained central to his politics, reinforced by support from high-profile international progressives such as London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Colombian President Gustavo Petro. His worldview is explicitly transnational, and it is this perspective that has recently pushed him into an international firestorm.

At a recent New York event, Mamdani was asked whether he would appear alongside Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the latter’s visit. His answer was blunt: the Indian prime minister is a “war criminal.” With that remark, Mamdani linked two of the most contentious human-rights debates of the 21st century—Israel’s war in Gaza and India’s 2002 Gujarat riots—arguing that democratic mandates and U.S. alliances cannot shield leaders from scrutiny over mass violence.

By pairing Modi with Netanyahu, Mamdani challenged a prevailing belief that Washington’s partners should enjoy political immunity when accused of grave abuses. The comparison unsettled diplomats and galvanized activists who argue that accountability should not end at the boundaries of geopolitical convenience.

The mention of Modi and war crimes immediately recalls the Gujarat riots, among the darkest chapters of modern Indian history. Violence erupted after a train fire killed Hindu passengers in Godhra, triggering retaliatory attacks that left more than 1,000 people dead according to official figures—most of them Muslims. Human-rights groups have long argued the real toll was far higher, with estimates running up to 2,000 Muslim deaths.

Investigations by Human Rights Watch and others concluded that the violence was not spontaneous but coordinated, often with the complicity or negligence of local officials and police. Scholars have described the events as ethnic cleansing; some argue they meet the legal threshold for genocide.

Despite the scale of the atrocities, India has never faced international legal proceedings over Gujarat. Domestic prosecutions have been limited, and efforts to pursue civil or criminal cases abroad have been largely dismissed on grounds of sovereignty. For critics like Mamdani, this gap underscores the failure of international mechanisms to hold influential leaders accountable.

Mamdani’s comparison also invokes the Gaza war, which has drawn one of the most intense accountability debates of the past decade. In 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of using starvation as a method of warfare and committing crimes against humanity, including persecution and murder.

In its announcement, the ICC emphasized that there is no immunity for sitting heads of state before international tribunals. Any of the court’s 125 member states is legally obligated to arrest Netanyahu or Gallant if they travel there—a symbolic but potent rebuke of Israel’s wartime conduct.

For rights advocates, the Gaza case highlights an emerging shift: even longstanding U.S. allies can now face formal charges for wartime abuses. For critics of double standards, this legal moment only sharpens longstanding questions about why comparable accountability has never been pursued in India.

Mamdani relies on well-established principles of international law. The Rome Statute lays out specific war crimes—willful killing, attacks on civilians, torture, starvation as a weapon—and crimes against humanity such as systematic murder and persecution. These categories are meant to apply universally, regardless of political office.

Another guiding principle is the UN’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which holds that governments must protect populations from mass atrocities. When they fail—or are complicit—the international community is expected to intervene through diplomatic, economic, or, in extreme cases, military tools.

By invoking Gujarat and Gaza, Mamdani argues that both countries exhibit patterns of violence that fall squarely within these frameworks. To him, the fact that one case has reached international courtrooms and the other has not says more about geopolitical hierarchies than about the underlying crimes.

Mamdani’s remarks sparked outrage among parts of the Indian diaspora. Prominent Hindu-American groups accused him of bigotry, framing his criticism of Modi as an attack on Hindus rather than a political leader. Yet Indian human-rights advocates, including respected activist Harsh Mander, applauded Mamdani for speaking plainly about abuses that remain politically sensitive within India.

Reactions from Israel’s right-wing government were similarly fierce. Officials already angered by Mamdani’s pro-Palestinian positions seized on his remarks as further evidence of alleged antisemitism. Israeli ministers labeled him a “Hamas supporter” and derided New York voters for electing him.

But Mamdani has also attracted vocal support from younger Jewish voters, progressive organizers, and segments of the Democratic Party who believe America must be willing to criticize allies when mass atrocities are alleged. Polling shows a widening generational divide: younger Americans, including many young Jews, are markedly more skeptical of Israeli military actions and more supportive of Palestinian rights than older cohorts.

Mamdani’s decision to publicly equate Modi and Netanyahu reflects a broader generational shift. Young activists across continents increasingly challenge abuses of power—whether in Sudan, Myanmar, Gaza, or India—and are fluent in the language of international law once reserved for diplomats and academics.

Surveys by GlobeScan show Gen Z consistently ranking human-rights violations and corruption as top global concerns, suggesting a political future in which demands for accountability intensify rather than fade.

This shift also places pressure on U.S. foreign policy. Washington is deepening security cooperation with both India and Israel, often downplaying human-rights concerns to maintain strategic relationships. Mamdani’s argument forces a harder conversation: can a country champion universal rights abroad while giving its closest partners a pass on alleged atrocities?

By linking Gujarat and Gaza, Mamdani insists that war crimes are not abstractions but legal categories that apply regardless of political alliances or electoral mandates. His comments challenge entrenched norms, provoke backlash, and resonate with a younger generation increasingly unwilling to accept impunity for powerful leaders.

Whether or not one agrees with his tactics, Mamdani embodies a growing political trend: the belief that long-term peace and stability require a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths and hold even allies to account. In that sense, he represents a rising generation for whom justice is a universal standard—not a negotiable one.