Let’s be real for a second: political theory can be dry.
It sits on dusty shelves and gets cited in academic papers that no one actually reads.
But then you have Ziya Mamdani.
I remember first stumbling upon his work a few years ago, specifically his critique of how colonial powers handled the ‘native.’ It didn’t feel like dry academia; it felt like a mirror held up to the world we live in now.
Mamdani isn’t just a historian or a sociologist; he’s a relentless critic of how the modern state creates inequality.
Who is Ziya Mamdani?
Most people probably know him as the Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and African Studies at Columbia University, or maybe as the son of the famous Indian filmmaker M.
S.
Sathyu.
But his academic reputation is built on something much heavier: a detailed dissection of how colonial rule molded the African state.
His work is often cited when people try to understand the roots of ethnic conflict in places like Sudan or Rwanda.
He argues that the colonial system didn’t just divide people; it created a hierarchy of rights that we still struggle with today.
The Core Concept: Citizen vs. Here’s the interesting part.
Subject
This is the big one.
If you only read one thing by Mamdani, make it his distinction between a citizen and a subject.
Mamdani argues that colonial rule created a dual system.
In the towns, where Europeans lived, they applied the rule of law (civil law). Now think about that for a second.
Everyone there was a ‘citizen’—they had rights, protections, and legal standing.
But in the countryside, where the colonized masses lived, the British applied ‘customary law.’ Here, you weren’t a citizen.
You were a subject.
As a subject, you were bound to your chief or your village, but the state had no direct obligation to you.
If a chief was corrupt, you were out of luck.
You had no recourse to the higher courts.
And here’s the kicker: when the colonial powers left, they didn’t fully dismantle this system.
They just handed the keys to the ‘subjects’ (local elites) and left the ‘citizens’ (the urban elites) to run the show.
The result? A fragmented state where the law applies differently depending on who you are and where you live.
Why This Matters Now
It’s easy to dismiss this as ancient history, right? But from what I’ve seen in current events, Mamdani’s theory is a blueprint for modern polarization.
When a government favors one group (citizens) over another (subjects) based on ethnicity or geography, you don’t get stability.
You get resentment.
He applies this logic to the refugee crisis, too.
Mamdani points out that Western nations treat refugees differently than citizens.
They are often kept in ‘camps’—a very colonial term—where they are managed rather than integrated.
They are subjects, not citizens.
His Major Works You Should Know
If you want to dive in, don’t start with a dense academic journal. And this is where things get interesting.
Start with the books.
They are readable, sharp, and infuriating in the best way possible.
- Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism: This is his magnum opus.
It’s the book that really put him on the map. Here’s the interesting part.
It’s a long read, but it changes how you look at African politics forever.
- Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror: This one is controversial.
He argues that the US used religion as a tool to divide political movements in the Muslim world, labeling moderate Muslims as ‘good’ (for strategic reasons) and radicals as ‘bad.’
- When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda: In this book, Mamdani dissects the Rwandan genocide.
He argues it wasn’t just a spontaneous outbreak of tribal hatred, but a consequence of the state structure that colonial powers left behind.
Mamdani’s Critique of Modern Liberalism
I find Mamdani’s take on ‘liberalism’ really interesting.
He’s often seen as a critic of the West, but he’s actually a critic of liberal multiculturalism.
He thinks that liberal democracies often solve racism by simply ignoring it—pretending we are all equal in the abstract, while ignoring the structural realities on the ground.
He wants a deeper, more structural change.
He questions whether the nation-state is even the right vehicle for justice anymore.
Is Mamdani Too Harsh?
Sure, some critics say he’s a bit too focused on blaming colonialism for everything.
They argue that African leaders made their own choices, and sometimes those choices were just corrupt or incompetent, regardless of the colonial framework.
But even if you disagree with his conclusions, his methodology is undeniable. And this is where things get interesting.
He forces you to look at the history of the present.
He shows you that the lines we draw today—between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ between ‘citizen’ and ‘refugee’—are rarely natural.
They are political constructions.
When I read Mamdani, I don’t just feel like I’m learning history.
I feel like I’m learning how to read the news better.
It helps me spot the ‘subjects’ in the story before the story even ends.
Final Thoughts
Ziya Mamdani is a heavyweight in the world of thought.
He doesn’t offer easy answers.
In fact, he mostly asks the right questions.
Questions about power, about law, and about who gets to decide the rules of the game.
Whether you agree with his Marxist leanings or his structuralist approach, you can’t ignore him.
He’s one of the most important voices trying to make sense of a world that still operates on colonial lines, even if the colonial powers are long gone.
If you want to understand the undercurrents of modern racism and state violence, you have to understand Mamdani.
Image source: pexels.com
Image source credit: pexels.com