People can be a little broader minded. The racial quotes which Gandhi was made (referring to the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi – only if right) during his early years of work in ‘colonial’ Africa that too he wasn’t grown into a complete man of ‘Non-violence, anti-apartheid and anti-British’. Gandhi he himself did not denied the initial colonial influence on his thoughts. After some extent I found all this spread of his quotes are above criticism also matches to any sort of propaganda.
“A gradual evolve of a person with his thoughts, ideas and perceptive towards the world should be considered, while creating an image or even project to a figure based on identity – as we all know while referring to the history ‘nobody was born into savior or dictator’ OR even ‘doctor or saint’. I certainly not ready to accept that Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King were completely wrong while judging Gandhi and inherit his way of protest into freedom fight and racial struggle. Nelson Mandela once said “Gandhi was reacting not to African ‘Natives’ in general, but to ‘criminalised Natives’ ” He added this as well Gandhi should be judged “in the context of the time and circumstance.” http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/03/31/not-all-peaceful-13-racist-quotes-gandhi-said-about-black-people/
Book reference: http://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/satyagraha_in_south_africa.pdf
mannira.store 
Vahsek Keviv: There’s a point of divergence here but this is where my case rests – Gandhi began as a figure on the right wing, with a worldview inspired by caste. Over the years, he made many adjustments, and compromises. He evolved. But if you ask Dalits, or observe his actions and speeches vis-a-vis Dalit assertion, there was little improvement. To the end of his days, he refused to abandon his devotion for the caste system. There were only symbolic acts, like taking in Dalit inmates for the Sabarmati Ashram (something his rich, conservative, upper caste patrons made sure would not continue for long). All of his compromises were with people of his own background and cultural milieu. Even with Africans, in either Africa, or the US, there was great hesitation on Gandhi’s part to get ‘close’ to either liberation movements or leaders. Africans all over the world have started re-evaluating him as an icon. What Mandela or King said was said in a context where the Indian elite carefully managed his image, washing away his controversial side. Now, things have started changing. There are native people in South Africa who are calling for his statues to be taken down after getting to know what he said and did while in South Africa. Same in the US, and some Caribbean countries also.
Vahsek Keviv: Plus there’s some other aspects of Gandhian philosophy w.r.t Adivasis. His followers, i.e. Gandhians played havoc in the tribal belts (of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh) where they settled by portraying Adivasi culture as primitive and inferior, and forcing them to dress, eat, and behave like ‘pure’ vegetarian upper caste Baniyas or Patels. There’s a book by Shashank Kela – A Rogue and Peasant Slave, where he mentions this is in passing. This was after Independence, after Gandhi died. That’s why I pointed out that there’s a problem with Gandhi and Gandhian philosophy. Also, these Gandhians, like Gandhi did not compromise with Adivasis or Dalits. But they compromised with (the mercantile/feudal ethics of ) Baniya and Patel settlers in Adivasi lands who swindled the tribes of their land and forests (using alcohol, dubious techniques of money lending, and the monopolies created over forest produce by the state). The horrible condition of Gujarati Adivasis is a byproduct of this political opportunism of post-Independence Gandhians.
I feel you were sliding from the point.
So is that what you say “All freedom struggles initiated by Gandhi in Africa for native Africans and migrant Indians were for establishing himself as an icon and freedom movement in India was empowering Brahmin and Baniya community where they were already empowered or transfer power to them from colonial hands? Don’t you which is too ironic towards to the historical realities?
Vahsek Keviv: No, no! That’s not what I am conveying. He was not responsible for his own deification. He had his style. But it was his supporters who turned him into a pan-Indian icon. He never was. For Dalits and Adivasis, he was never a leader. Also, Gandhi was never involved in any broad-based movement fighting for the rights of South African natives, or African Americans. At the most, his techniques of political agitation, and his spiritual image (I would say, constructed and not real) appealed to people like Mandela and King. But he himself, as a politcal personality, never got involved, or contributed anything to African liberation movements. There’s a professor in South Africa who has been researching Gandhi’s role vis-a-vis Africans in South Africa. He found it to be negative (with racist overtones) and as that of a collaborator with the British colonists. In India, many Adivasi (Jaipal Singh Munda) and Dalit (Ambedkar) leaders found the Gandhian approach problematic. And both Jaipal and Ambedkar were highly educated, extremely knowledgeable and pragmatic individuals; not at all narrow-minded or fundamentalist in any way to oppose the Gandhian vision just for the sake of opposition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaipal_Singh
I won’t deny the fact that Gandhi was made to a symbol by his followers or the historians of the time especially after his death, unfortunately the IInd half of 19th and early 20th century had that unique character to raise and endorse people into kind of status, which might’ve properly worked in Gandhi’s case as well.
See, I accept the fact that Gandhi’s approach was political as well as tactic – it attained a spiritual face due to certain reason. Like Gandhi used all Hindu tools efficiently like eg., Gita – Ramarajya all such to drop the idea of Non-violence (Jain spiritual) as well as civil disobedience (political). ‘Buddha the light of Asia’ was the one book inspired Gandhi a lot. He wanted the Buddhist-Jain philosophies to put into India’s spiritual arena to take off nationalist movement – But the sub-continent was already dominated by Aryan social supremacy and each & every Hindu deity represented violence. So he cleverly stoned the system with its own tools – But that was not a religious representation otherwise he wouldn’t have spoken in favor of Muslim Pakistan after Independence.
I look at things in this way Gandhi and Ambedkar was the different sides of a coin of Indian Nationalism. Removal of untouchablity, socialism, secularism and annihilation of caste – those ideas shared by Gandhi and Ambedkar democratically even with criticism – not like pseudo Gandhians and Ambedkarites today, both Gandhi and Ambedkar not ready to be submissive in certain opinions as well (Quoting from Ilaya’s Buffalo Nationalism). Social reform was the mutual attempt for both of them but Gandhi tried within Hinduism but Ambedkar embrace Buddism after he tried and failed with Hinduism. Ambedkar was more into democratic approach since he was a highly educated as well as a good scholar, so that Indians served with a powerful backbone of Constitution, which even dared to margin the prominent religion of the sub-continent into a side and gave equal preference for all religion without involving any of them into law-judicial-administrative system. Gandhi’s primary idea was to attempt for freedom with civil disobedience and without bloodshed and to eliminate caste based divisions – He was worried if Indians tend to be violent in any case against British and the tendency would sustain even after the independence. So the better option was non-violent movement also achieved at the end.
I would find both of their ideology will be relevant in India’s social growth and reform. Vahsek Keviv