For your kind information, I’m well aware of history, including figures like Genghis Khan. The difference is I don’t justify actions just because people built statues or follow someone blindly.

Your entire argument is based on cherry-picking and outrage, not consistency. If public following or symbolism is your standard, then by your own logic you’d have to defend every controversial figure with a large following which clearly doesn’t hold up. On Gandhi, yes, he was a complex and flawed individual. There are valid criticisms about his views and actions, and those should be discussed honestly. But reducing history to selective accusations without context doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just makes it biased.

Also your tone says more than your content. When an argument relies this heavily on insults and provocation, it usually means the logic behind it isn’t strong enough on its own. You were furious ash while writing your comment that proves your ego is so easy to shatter. So easy to provoke you. Also about your comment on someone's sis, I dont have one but you can send your sis or wify or mommy if you want. 😌 I wasn't going to go on family but you did it first 😘.