"Go Back To Third World": Republican On Video Of Zohran Mamdani Eating With Hands
"Civilised people in America don't eat like this," the Texas Congressman posted on X, reacting to the video. "If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the third world."
The clip, which went viral on Sunday, shows Mr Mamdani eating with his hands and speaking on how his upbringing in Uganda and South Africa shaped his understanding of the Palestinian struggle.
Recorded in 2023 during an interview with Uncivilised Media, the video captures him saying, "When you grow up as someone, especially in the Third World, you have a very different understanding of the Palestinian struggle. It is one that is framed in terms of empathy and solidarity."
Civilized people in America don't eat like this.
If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World. https://t.co/TYQkcr0nFE
— Congressman Brandon Gill (@RepBrandonGill) June 30, 2025
Eating with hands, as seen in the video, is a widely practised tradition in many South Asian cultures.
If elected in November, Mr Mamdani would become New York City's first mayor of Indian descent. Born in Kampala, Uganda, to a Punjabi mother and father with Indian ancestry, he spent his early years in South Africa before moving to New York at age seven. He became a US citizen in 2018, shortly after graduating from college.
The Democratic socialist has been vocal about dismantling US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), calling it a "fascist" institution, which he intends to expel from the city. His stance has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans, particularly allies of President Donald Trump.
Former ICE director Tom Homan dismissed Mr Mamdani's pledge, saying, "Good luck with that," and promised intensified federal enforcement in sanctuary cities under the Trump administration.
Republican Rep Andy Ogles branded Mr Mamdani an "antisemitic, socialist, communist" and called for his denaturalisation. Representative Nancy Mace posted an online poll asking whether Zohran Mamdani should be deported.
Trump mocked Mr Mamdani on Truth Social, calling him a "100% Communist Lunatic" and attacking his appearance, intelligence, and political allies.
Stephen Miller, Trump's former senior advisor and an immigration hardliner, described Mr Mamdani's primary win as "a warning" of what happens when immigration is not tightly controlled, accusing Democrats of backing a radical agenda.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
The medical boundaries for AYUSH practitioners
The recent controversy on X between a hepatologist and an Indian chess Grand Master, on whether practitioners of traditional medicine can claim to be doctors, has sparked much commentary on the role and the status of practitioners of traditional Indian medicine systems such as Ayurveda and Unani, in India. Committees, governments, perspectives The burning issue here is not merely whether practitioners of Ayurveda can refer to themselves as doctors, but rather the scope of medical activities permitted under Indian law. This is an issue which has consequences for public health. A starting point for this discussion is to understand the framing of the debate over the last 80 years, beginning 1946, when the Health Survey and Development Committee, better known as Bhore Committee, batted in favour of modern scientific medicine based on evidence. The committee had pointed out that other countries were in the process of phasing out their traditional medicine systems and recommended that states take a call on the extent to which traditional medicine played a role in their public health systems. The Bhore committee's lack of enthusiasm for the traditional medicinal system did not go unnoticed by practitioners of traditional Indian medicine who mounted a vocal protest. They managed to convince the Government of India to set up the Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine, which submitted its report in 1948. This committee unabashedly wrapped up its conclusions in communal language, framing the issue in terms of Hindu nationalism by linking Ayurveda to the Vedas and its decline to 'foreign domination'. While the Nehru government took no action to formally recognise these practitioners of traditional medicine, the Indira Gandhi government in 1970 enacted a legislation called The Indian Medicine Central Council Act recognising and regulating the practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. This law was replaced in 2020 with a new law called The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act. The syllabus for aspiring practitioners of Ayurveda is an absolute mish-mash of concepts that span everything from doshas, prakriti, atmas (which includes learning the difference between paramatma and jivatma) with a sprinkling of modern medical concepts such as cell physiology and anatomy. These are irreconcilable concepts — the theory of tridosha attributes all ills to an imbalance of doshas, while modern medicine locates the concepts of some diseases such as infections in 'germ theory', among others. There is no middle ground between both systems of medicine which is why concepts such as integrative medicine make no sense. Point of friction Nevertheless, the legal recognition of this new class of practitioners led to questions on the exact boundaries between the practice of traditional and modern medicine. The major point of friction has been the prescription of modern medicines by the practitioners of traditional medicine. Ayurvedic practitioners, in particular, while claiming the superiority of their art over modern medicine, have consistently demanded the right to prescribe modern medicines developed by evidence-based modern science. Pertinently, this dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which defined the class of 'registered medical practitioners' who can prescribe modern medicine. This definition is complicated since it is not limited to doctors with a MBBS degree. It delegates a certain amount of power to State governments to pass orders declaring medical practitioners on their State medical registers as persons 'practising the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of ….' the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Many State governments have used this power under Rule 2(ee) to allow registered practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani to prescribe modern medicine such as antibiotics. The constitutionality of these orders was challenged before the courts and the first round of litigation concluded in 1998 with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors. The Court concluded that 'the right to prescribe drugs of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine'. Simply put, Ayurvedic practitioners had no right to prescribe modern medicine. That judgment never stopped the lobbying by Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners with State governments for the promulgation of orders under Rule 2(ee) allowing them to prescribe modern medicine. Several State governments have continued passing these orders in defiance of the Court's judgment. This inevitably leads to litigation before the High Courts, usually by the Indian Medical Association, which often wins these cases. Unsuspecting patients too have often sued practitioners of Ayurveda before consumer courts on the grounds that they were deceived into believing that they were being treated by a doctor with a MBBS degree who can prescribe modern medicine. While much of the litigation has revolved around the right to dispense modern medicine, there is also the issue regarding the medical procedures that can be conducted legally by practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani. For example, can a registered Ayurvedic practitioner 'intubate' a patient? This is an important question to ask since it is an open secret that many hospitals purporting to practise modern medicine are hiring Ayurvedic practitioners with Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree at lower pay in place of graduates with a MBBS degree. Further, a notification by the Indian government in 2020 has allowed Ayurvedic practitioners (post graduates) to perform 58 minor surgeries, including the removal of the gall bladder, appendix and benign tumours. The constitutionality of this notification is pending before the courts. If the notification is upheld, the question that arises is whether these Ayurvedic practitioners can now use anaesthetic agents and antibiotics required to conduct surgeries. The stakes are high for public health in India since the likely strategy of Ayurvedic practitioners will be to argue that these surgeries were known in traditional Indian medicine. In these times of heady Hindutva, it will be difficult to find a judge who will ignore these claims. The political factor The larger political backdrop to this entire debate regarding Ayurvedic practitioners is 'Hindu pride', which has fuelled claims of fantastical achievements by ancient Indian civilisation, be it the pushpaka vimana or the claims of the Kauravas being test tube babies. When a policy issue such as Ayurveda is cynically draped in the language of 'Hindu pride', it is not just the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the Indian National Congress which feels compelled to support an obviously dangerous approach to public health. The last election manifesto of the Indian National Congress, in 2024, promised that the party would 'support' all systems of medicines instead of a promise to support only rational, evidence-based medicine. This blind faith in traditional medicine is going to cost every citizen in the future since the government is actively considering the inclusion of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) treatments under the Ayushman Bharat insurance scheme funded by tax-payers. This is in addition to approximately ₹20,000 crore of tax-payer money spent on research councils functioning under the Ministry of AYUSH with a mandate to research AYUSH. They have very little to show for in terms of scientific breakthroughs. Twitter outrage notwithstanding, the joke at the end of the day is on the tax-payer. Dinesh S. Thakur is the author of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'. Prashant Reddy T. is the coauthor of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
25 minutes ago
- First Post
‘No deal? No problem': Trump eyes sweeping 15–20% global tariff plan on non-deal trading partners
President Donald Trump said on Monday most trading partners that do not negotiate separate trade deals would soon face tariffs of 15% to 20% on their exports to the United States, well above the broad 10% tariff he imposed in April. read more US President Donald Trump on Monday announced plans to implement a 'world tariff' of 15% to 20% on exports from most countries that have not signed separate trade agreements with the United States, well above the 10% baseline set in April. Speaking alongside UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer at his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, Trump said notifications would soon be sent to around 200 countries outlining the new default tariff rates. 'I would say it'll be somewhere in the 15 to 20% range,' Trump told reporters STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The move is part of Trump's broader strategy to eliminate America's long-standing trade deficits. He has already unveiled tariffs of up to 50% for certain countries, with new rates for Brazil set to take effect on Friday. The announcements have spurred feverish negotiations by a host of countries seeking lower tariff rates, including India, Pakistan, Canada, and Thailand, among others. The US president on Sunday clinched a huge trade deal with the European Union that includes a 15% tariff on most EU goods, $600 billion of investments in the US by European firms, and $750 billion in energy purchases over the next three years. That followed a $550-billion deal with Japan last week and smaller agreements with Britain, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Other talks are ongoing, including with India, but prospects have dimmed for many more agreements before Friday, Trump's deadline for deals before higher rates take effect. Trump has repeatedly said he favours straightforward tariff rates over complex negotiations. 'We're going to be setting a tariff for essentially, the rest of the world,' he said again on Monday. 'And that's what they're going to pay if they want to do business in the United States. Because you can't sit down and make 200 deals." STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Monday trade talks with the U.S. were at an intense phase, conceding that his country was still hoping to walk away with a tariff rate below the 35% announced by Trump on some Canadian imports. Carney conceded this month that Canada - which sends 75% of its exports to the United States - would likely have to accept some tariffs. With inputs from agencies
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Yemen waives Nimisha Priya's death sentence, claims Kanthapuram
The Yemeni authorities have decided to revoke the execution of Nimisha Priya, the Indian nurse awaiting capital punishment for the alleged murder of Yemen national Talal Abdo Mahdi. The confirmation of the decision came on Monday night from the office of India's Grand Mufti and Sunni leader Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliar, whose last-minute intervention through the Sufi scholars of Yemen had secured the postponement of Nimish Priya's execution scheduled for July 16. A team of Yemeni scholars, appointed by Sheikh Habib Omer bin Hafiz, a respected Sufi scholar in Yemen, at the request of Mr. Aboobacker Musliar, worked alongside Northern Yemen's government representatives and international diplomats to mediate an agreement, resulting in the decision to revoke Nimisha Priya's execution. Mr. Aboobacker Musliar's claim has been confirmed by Sarhan Shamsan Al Wiswabi, a Yemeni activist and spokesperson for the Action Council for Talal Mahdi's Justice in Yemen, through a Facebook post on Monday. Mr. Wiswabi said in his post that due to the strong intervention of religious scholars, the death sentence was waived. He said it would now be either release from prison or life imprisonment. Following the commutation of her death sentence, Nimisha Priya's fate now hangs in the balance between two possibilities: serving a life sentence or securing her release upon payment of diya or blood money. However, subsequent matters will be determined following further negotiations with the family of the deceased, Talal Abdo Mahdi.
