^Mahatma Gandhi, peaceful leader
I though it was strange that people would hate Gandhi for a number of reasons. First, not only did Gandhi not endorse violent policies, but he also condemned them. Thus, Gandhi gave others no reason to hate him because he did not do anything bad to them to begin with. At least in my own personal experiences, as naive as they may be, there is usually a reason why someone may hate someone else. In addition, Gandhi did not force his policies on anyone. He was a completely harmless political ruler, who used only peaceful means to protest.
Even though I could not understand why people would hate Gandhi at first, after thinking about one of his policies, this made slightly more sense to me. Gandhi supported the idea of a united Muslim/Hindu state. Thus, his views, which were widely supported by the majority of Indians, contradicted those of the Muslims who wanted a separate Muslim division. Perhaps the people who wanted a separate Muslim division viewed him as a threat to what they wanted, thus making him an enemy, no matter how gentle or harmless he truly was. Even still, this contradiction of political views does not seem to merit some of the nicknames given to Gandhi by people who hate him, including the 'destroyer of India' and the 'betrayer.'
I feel that someone of Gandhi's moral standard does not merit hate from anyone; he should be regarded as the peaceful man that he is, rather than the man who endorses policies that one may disagree with. Do you agree that Gandhi does not merit these names? Or do you think discrepancy in political views can justify political slander?
