No. Except for Gandhi - I wouldn't put anyone on a pedestal. Nehru was a good man but naive but he certainly isn't the villain that a combination of his successors' attitude and the masala filled gossip of the right make him out to be. He was a true Democrat and just like I will always criticize him for his China policy, I will also praise him for instilling democracy in India.
Ok, so let me measure Gandhi by your own parameters.
1. You claimed Savarkar wanted to segregate Muslims in the same way as African-Americans were in the US.
Yet it was Gandhi who segregated Muslims by agreeing to the partition of India. So by this very parameter, Savarkar and Gandhi were in the same page. Only Savarkar had a more principled stand and he stuck to his principles while Gandhi claimed to have principles, but he certainly had no problems with compromising on those principles for "national interest".
2. Next is Gandhi's claim to his "moral authority".
a.) Funny word for a man who admitted to sleeping naked with his own abused grand niece. (AFTER his wife's death)
b.) A man who denied his dying wife penicilline, but allowed the doctores to use penicillin to save his own life.
c.) A man who had no qualms asking Indians to pick up arms against the Germans, but had qualms asking them to pick up arms against the British.
d.) A man who did not do a day of honest labour after he returned by South Africa. He lived on monthly handouts by Birla, who ones famously said, "it cost the nation a fortune to keep Gandhi living in poverty" (mistakenly attributed to Sarojini naidu who merely repeated it)
Compare this to Savarkar who asked Indians to take up arms against the British, who was faithful to wife till the end, lived off his own resources, and was consistent in his approach to the british.
3. Next is the claim of Gandhi's popularity.
This was true, but it was also a creation of the British. Gandhi was 'popular" because he was allowed to publish since he supported British home rule. The british gave lighter sentence to him and his "Jail" was a serious of comfortable cells. Only thing that changed were degrees of comfort. Those were the benefits of being a collaborator, like Gilani or Yasin Malik in kashmir.
Nationalists like Subash chandra Bose and Savarkar were forced into exile and made to leave India so that they could never become popular enough to incite a revolution. Savarkar was never a british collaborator.
In absence of such powerful men of flammable ideas, the vacuum was filled by pusillanimous men like Gandhi. This was exactly what the british wanted. You think Gandhi would have become "mahatma" without active british support ?
Gandhi spent 15 years in jail, in relative comfort. Savarkar spent 11 years in "Kala Pani" being tortured every day of his life.
By what parameter is Gandhi superior to Savarkar and deserve a pedestal ?
Ask this question to yourself .
Now who the hell told you that all Brahmins are beautiful ?(this statement was yours).
Not mine
This is the part where I give you a long rope hang yourself.
QUOTE me the part where I made such a claim. Must be easy enough for you.