Zohran Mamdani's lavish Ugandan wedding sparks social media frenzy: Critics question optics amid his political stance
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Born on October 18, 1991, Mamdani, whose family migrated to the US when he was seven, is the son of Indian filmmaker Mira Nair and academic Mahmood Mamdani, who both migrated from India to Uganda, where he was born. Until now, Mamdani had always been known for his pros- being the first Asian American and Muslim nominee in the city's mayoral history, a democratic socialist, a set of popular and influential parents, a Syrian wife, and his humble and engaging personality.
'Hot girls for Zohran' has been a constant comment in his social media posts, with people not only showing support online but also voting for him to win the city's Democratic primary for mayor.
However, now it seems that Mamdani is being critiqued for his dual stance, signified by a much-trolled three-day celebration of his nuptials. Find out the tea below!
A lavish three-day celebration
Image credits: X
Recently, the NYC mayoral candidate celebrated his wedding to his wife and Syrian illustrator Rama Duwaji in a three-day extravaganza held at the family's ritzy and secluded compound in Uganda.
Situated in the luxe Buziga Hill area outside the capital of Kampala, his birthplace, the compound was intensely guarded by military-style masked men with guests arriving and partying until midnight, and a cell phone jamming system in place, learned The Post.
On Sunday, Mamdani informed his social media followers that he was heading to his hometown to celebrate his nuptials with his family at the property owned by his parents.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The neighbourhood where the celebration happened is one of the richest in Uganda, housing billionaires and fetching prices of more than $1 million. Additionally, the home itself sits on two acres of greenery with three security gates and a view of Lake Victoria.
'Outside the Mamdani house were more than 20 special forces command unit guards, some in masks, and there was a phone-jamming system set up — and all for the strictly invite-only Mamdani event,' one witness confirmed to The Post.
On Thursday, attendees enjoyed fruit juices and dancing to music from a local DJ, added a source.
Zohran Mamdani faces criticism for his wealthy bash
Image credits: X
In a conversation with The Post, a local resident shared how they are just trying to win the bread and make sure their families are OK. Additionally, during his celebration, which many locals did not even realise was happening, people were mourning the loss of former Ugandan Supreme Court Judge George Kanyeihamba, who lived near Mamdani's place and died on July 14.
The Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni himself came to pay his respects to the judge, and thus many found his celebration "insensitive. 'Because of the culture here, it was insensitive to have a wedding celebration in the same week as mourning – or 'Okukungubaga' – as it's called here,' one said.
Not only Ugandan locals, but people online are also not happy with Mamdani's secretive, guarded and luxurious celebration.
"Zohran Mamdani called ICE agents in masks 'militarized oppression.' Then flew to Uganda for his own wedding bash, guarded by masked riflemen, military tents, and a phone-jamming system — all at his millionaire family's compound. ICE for thee, private militia for me. Revolution™️ sponsored by generational wealth," wrote a person on X.
"Ask yourself why would Zohran Mamdani needed to use cell phone jammers and heavy security for guests at his party.
Could it be that the Socialist candidate didn't want to be outed as a wealthy hypocrite - living a life that he condemns for other New Yorkers," added another.
"Mamdani clearly doesn't see the irony—his wealth and lavish lifestyle, including that Uganda wedding bash with armed guards, stem directly from capitalism. As a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, he thrives while pushing policies like defunding the NYPD and rent freezes that could financially ruin everyone else," called out another X user.
"Three lavish weddings in NYC, Dubai & Uganda—while preaching socialism to struggling New Yorkers. It's always the same with champagne socialists: lectures on equality by day, luxury with elites by night. Socialism for the poor, capitalism for the connected," stated another.
Before the Ugandan bash, Mamdani and Duwaji held a Nikkah ceremony in Dubai with the latter's family in December 2024 and eloped for the legal ceremony in New York City in February 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Austen's Jane is the friend you need
It is a truth often ignored that the Pride and Prejudice screen adaptations are unfair to her secondary characters. As the 2005 movie returns to Indian cinemas and a new series hits Netflix, amid all the sizzle and dazzle of the lead pair, another generation of viewers will probably dismiss Jane Bennet as the sweet, boring sister of Elizabeth. However, the eldest Miss Bennet was written with more substance than is universally acknowledged, and she would probably be a better friend than the clever Lizzy in today's world. One of the many reasons the charms of Pride and Prejudice refuse to fade is how easily the main story adapts to the screen. Jane Austen's sparkling dialogue can directly be lifted into the screenplay, and the lead characters, Elizabeth and Mr Darcy, confirm to modern sensibilities. Written 200 years ago, Elizabeth has more spirit and verve than many 21st century heroines. The rich, brooding Mr Darcy is an atypical romance hero in that he actually understands consent. In contrast, Jane Bennet's rather unfashionable and non-camera-friendly virtues seem to be patience, forgiveness, and suffering in silence. In fact, most movies don't even do her the justice of adhering to the one fact the novel hammers on, that Jane is much more beautiful than Elizabeth. But the thing about the book Jane is this — she is not just beautiful and sweet, she is kind and strong, and has good judgement without the need to judge. Austen repeatedly alludes to Jane's good sense, steady disposition, and moral courage. When the Bingleys are pressing her to stay on at Netherfield, Austen writes, 'Jane was firm where she felt herself to be in the right.' When Lizzy says Jane can never see a fault in anybody, she replies, 'I would not wish to be hasty in censuring anyone; but I always speak what I think', which Elizabeth agrees is the case. Elizabeth is the favourite of her dad, the intelligent, witty parent, while throughout the book, Jane is taking care of their mother, the petulant, embarrassing parent. While Elizabeth goes vacationing with her aunt and uncle, it is Jane who is best suited to 'play with, teach, and love' their four small children. And of course, it is Jane's assessment of Mr Darcy that turns out to be the right one, after all. One of the most telling commentaries on Jane's character comes from Austen much later in the book, when Elizabeth tells her about Wickham's true character. Jane would 'willingly have gone through the world without believing that so much wickedness existed in the whole of mankind, as was here collected in one individual'. And this is why I think she would make for a better friend than Lizzy in today's world — choosing to believe in the goodness of the world and its inhabitants, in the face of staggering counter-evidence. While their circumstances turn Elizabeth cynical, Jane continues to believe that romance and love and hope and goodness are around and even aplenty. Also, Jane refuses to perform. Throughout the book, there is no scene of her being singled out to play or sing, or of some sparkling repartee she delivers. Her good sense and brains are all displayed in acts of care or confidence. Liz and Charlotte even discuss how she does not display her affection for Bingley. In the hyper-performative age we live in, Jane's willingness to forever pass the mic would be truly radical. At a time when we seem to live for likes and views, a stunningly beautiful woman who refused to play for attention is refreshing. The sparkle of Lizzie Bennet will never fade. But it is the steady light of Jane we need when our hearts feel heavy and dark. The writer is Senior Assistant Editor, The Indian Express
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
P Chidambaram writes: Military boldness, political timidity
During the debate in both Houses of Parliament last week, the government gave the impression that Operation Sindoor had been finally paused, the goals had been achieved, and it is back to the usual way of doing things. That would be wrong. The truth is, the military was playing a tough game when the civilian government forcibly snatched the ball. Operation Sindoor has busted some myths: that fighting a war against Pakistan will be easy, that India's superiority in conventional war will prevail, and that India has friends and Pakistan none. The military leadership was exemplary. Apparently, they asked for and got operational freedom. The Indian armed forces' first-mover advantage gave them early wins: 9 places that hosted terrorist infrastructure were demolished and several terrorists were killed. However, Pakistan's armed forces quickly recovered. They counter-attacked on May 7-8 using China-made aircraft (J-10), China-made missiles (PL-15) and drones acquired from Türkiye. Realising that 'tactical mistakes' had been made, the military leadership paused the operation and 're-strategised'. That is leadership. It re-launched the Operation on May 9-10, struck at 11 military airbases and severely damaged them. Inevitably, the Indian armed forces suffered some 'losses', and the Chief of Defence Staff and the Deputy Chief of Army Staff admitted the losses. That too is leadership. Contrast the political leadership. It will not admit the mistakes or the losses. Like an ostrich whose head is buried in the sand, it maintains that India scored a 'decisive victory' in Operation Sindoor. If there was a decisive victory, why did India not press its advantage, secure more military gains, and demand and obtain from Pakistan political concessions? Why was the first outreach by the DGMO, Pakistan accepted immediately and without conditions? There were no answers from the government. [A celebrated example of a decisive victory was the surrender of Pakistan's General Niazi to India's Lt General Aurora on December 16, 1971.] Nor will the political leadership acknowledge the reality: Pakistan and China have forged strong military and political bonds. China is supplying new generation fighter aircraft and missiles to Pakistan. Obviously, China was testing its military hardware in a battlefield in a real war. The military bond is visible. On the political front, China's foreign minister Wang Yi praised Pakistan's 'resolute action on terrorism'. China also voted in favour when IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank approved large amounts of loans to Pakistan. The other reality is that Pakistan's (at least the Pakistan military's) bonds with the United States are firmly in place. President Trump invited General Asim Munir, Pakistan's Army Chief, to lunch at the White House, an unprecedented honour to a person who is not Head of State or Head of Government. Mr Trump thanked General Munir 'for not going into the war and ending the war', and gloated again that he had brought about the ceasefire. The Prime Minister and the Home Minister do not miss an opportunity to rebuke the Opposition but dare not rebut or refute President Trump or President Xi or their foreign ministers. The overwhelming reality is that the US and China are on the same page in their support to Pakistan militarily, politically and economically. Keeping aside their differences, the US and China have decided to support and patronise Pakistan. Worse, every country to which India reached out offered sympathy for the victims of the Pahalgam attack and condemned terrorism but did not condemn Pakistan as the perpetrator. India's political leadership refuses to acknowledge the reality and continues to nurture the false belief that Pakistan is friendless and India has friends all over the world. The other delusion of the Indian political leadership is that the 'terror ecosystem' has been smashed in Jammu & Kashmir. The truth is different. Ministry of Home Affairs disclosed to the all-party meeting on April 24, 2025 (immediately after the Pahalgam attack on April 22) that, between June 2014 and May 2024, there were — Undeniably, there were terrorist incidents and casualties in the governments of A B Vajpayee (1998-2004) and Manmohan Singh (2004-2014) as well. The terror ecosystem is populated by Pakistan-based infiltrators and India-based extremists, especially in Kashmir. Often, they work together, strike together and help each other. On April 26, the government demolished several houses in Kashmir of suspected 'terrorists associated with the Pahalgam massacre' — the owners were obviously India-based. In June 2025, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested two Indians for harbouring the suspected terrorists. The suspected terrorists were neutralised on July 27-28 and identified as infiltrators. India-based terrorists have committed terrorist attacks in the past. For example, Mumbai witnessed terror attacks in 2006 (suburban train bomb blasts), 2008 (Tajmahal Hotel) and 2011 (Zaveri Bazaar). The 2006 incident was committed by India-based terrorists, the 2008 attack was by 10 Pakistani infiltrators including Kasab, and the 2011 incident was by India-based terrorists. The government's claim that the terror ecosystem in India has been dismantled is manifestly wrong. The failure of intelligence and the absence of security forces in Pahalgam led to the tragedy. No one in the government has taken responsibility. The military's gains in Operation Sindoor will have a deterrent effect on Pakistan but the political leadership's timidity before the US and China may cancel the gains and give encouragement to Pakistan.
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Revisiting Chola grandeur with eyes wide open
Once again, public discourse is abuzz with the legacies of the Cholas — thanks to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent visit to Gangaikonda Cholapuram, their erstwhile capital. The Cholas occupy a hallowed space in Indian imagination for their pioneering experiments in democracy, but one needs to look beyond their basilica-like monuments, gilded Natarajas and temple vimanas (the towering structure above the inner sanctum) piercing the skylines of Thanjavur, Gangaikonda Cholapuram, and Darasuram. From an intellectual standpoint, the political rhetoric around the Cholas seems to overshadow the works of historians like K A N Sastri, R C Majumdar, B D Chattopadhyaya, R Champakalakshmi, Ranabir Chakravarti, Y Subbarayalu, Jonathan Heitzman, Hermann Kulke, Tansen Sen, Rakesh Mahalakshmi, Noboru Karashima, Anirudh Kanisetti, etc. Relatively forgotten by nationalists, the Cholas underwent an image makeover around the 1930s. Kanisetti says Sastri and Majumdar found romanticised examples of enlightened Chola imperialism to counter Britain's pride in its Roman past. Unsurprisingly, Kalki Krishnamurthy's novel Ponniyin Selvan (1950-54) edified Chola king Rajaraja I as an amalgamation of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and C Rajagopalachari. While most historians date the Cholas between the 9-13th century, ambitious ones have gone back to the Sangam period (between 350 BC and 1279 AD). In the latter periodisation, the Tamil confederacy was defeated by Kalinga in 155 BC, and re-emerged in 850 AD under Vijayalaya, who, with Pallava approval and Velir solidarity, seized Thanjavur. His grandson Parantaka-I vanquished the Pandyas and Pallavas, before being defeated by the Rashtrakutas. Parantaka's grandson Raja Raja Chola-I and great-grandson Rajendra Chola-I came to personify what made the Chola Empire a subject of unwavering awe — their towering temples, intricate bronzes, maritime prowess and administrative infrastructure. History enthusiasts are generally captivated by Chola polity's three-tiered system, constituted by nadu (supra-village), ur (village) and brahmadeya (Brahminical agrahara) assemblies, with nagarams (merchant-towns) governed by nagarattars. Simultaneously, Chola temples emerged as economic hubs endowed with devadana (land grants), and empowered as rheostats of irrigation and artisanal production. Remarkable as Cholas were in record-keeping — from the minutiae of irrigation-tank maintenance to rice-paddy yields — they were also a regime obsessed with surveillance. Wordy deeds codified brahmadeya, devadana and duties of village assemblies. State-appointed naduvagai ceyvars (accountants) and kankani nayakas (overseers) ensured that communal decisions aligned with royal revenue imperatives. Rigorous audits reviewed revenue targets and exemptions, wherein every remission required centralised ratification. Much euphoria has revolved around the concept of Chola elections by kudavolai (lottery) among the local committees. These offered a democratic veneer, but the franchise remained narrowly circumscribed within clannish coteries, while state commissioners retained veto power. Chola patronage of merchant guilds (ayyavole and manigramam) forged expansive trade-relations with South-East Asia and Sung China, while ships requisitioned from those guilds enlarged Chola warrior fleets. Revenues were reploughed for naval expansion in a commercial empire spanning over 2,200 miles — from Bengal to Sri Lanka and the Malay Archipelago. Here lies a well-concealed narrative of Chola supremacy, of profit-driven plunder. The Lankan chronicle Culavamsa recounts desecrated temples and monastic reliquaries around the 10th-11th century, around the time when Rajaraja-I and Rajendra-I's Lankan and South-East Asian raids targeted portable wealth, comprising temple treasuries, in the name of territorial expansion. Chola naval ascendancy clubbed martial hegemony with mercantile collaboration, provisioning warships, recruiting mariners and amassing siege-equipment without democratic will. This was at odds with the dharmic ideal of righteous rule. Though 11th-century Chola navies realigned trade from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, their profits were not redistributed for the upkeep of coastal nagarams. The Cholas were not classical democrats. The real reason behind their return to public discourse is not democracy but the same political impulse that led Margaret Thatcher to turn to the Victorians, or the Victorians to turn to the Greeks. There is no need to shy away from marvelling at the fluid grace of a bronze dancing Shiva from Chola times. Indians, like the Greeks, Britons and Americans, too deserve to celebrate their antiquity's heritage. But an uncritical historicism marks the vanity of present-day ideologues while concealing past foibles. One cannot help but also ruminate on the fact that back in 1940, Vedic scholar Justice T Paramasiva Iyer revealed that in the 10th and 11th centuries, during the reign of Rajaraja-I, Rajendra-I and Kulottunga-I, the supposed location of the Ram Setu was shifted from the Korkai harbour to its currently famed site at Adam's Bridge. The consecration of the Rameswaram lingam at the Rameswaram temple officiated a new tradition of Vaishnavite and Shaivite synergism in southern India. Political pundits may feel tempted to join the dots keeping in mind that a 21st-century history of the Cholas is also a history of the present. The writer teaches at O P Jindal Global University and is the author of The Great Indian Railways, Indians in London and Adam's Bridge
