My point was that figures like Gandhi are idolized in the West through tired, decontextualized quotes like the one above, and the result is that they are (popularly) effectively above reproach. The result is an ahistorical understanding of a complicated person who held a number of views (at various points in his life, although there's little evidence to support that his thinking on this particular topic evolved much over the course of his life) and engaged in behaviours that few would disagree were completely reprehensible.
Speaking of ahistoricism, I don't understand your point that his views were "a product of his time". Firstly, not everyone in his time held them, and more importantly, applying that logic one could dismiss pretty much any atrocity as "a product of its time".
Is it not a good quote then? Is there nothing to learn from Gandhi if every time he is brought up we have to bring up his opinions he held in his early twenties. Of course not everyone held them but most British educated lawyers in South Africa did. His racist opinion he held at one point in his life has nothing to do with his later quote nor does it have anything to do with the original thread at all speaking. You’re the one bringing a decontextualized quote that isn’t adding anything but to shit on Gandhi. Yes he isn’t perfect, we know that. But surely we don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Speaking of ahistoricism, I don't understand your point that his views were "a product of his time". Firstly, not everyone in his time held them, and more importantly, applying that logic one could dismiss pretty much any atrocity as "a product of its time".