It’s not black and white, so Gandhi is not a pure force for good. Yet, this is often his portrayal, at least in the West. Why judge him as a aggregate? Why not say he was a human who found something new that changed the world. This is hard to dispute.

If a breathing human was painted as literal saint in the past with no possible complication, then it was black and white in the past.

That being said, I don't think article paints him in as evil or saint. It seems to be more on his side, as in, saying that he was right in his criticism of west.

Unless you're from a minority group his disparaged from a perspective of genetic superiority... net positive...

Even accepting the worst possible picture you can paint of Gandhi's racism, which doesn't seem an accurate view of his whole life, his anti-imperialist views would likely still be a net positive.

tbh if he had a viewpoint, good or bad, but wasn't significantly influential with it, does it matter?

Is this related to the lines he recanted later? Which groups?