Kind of literally both. To such an extent that the question misses the point entirely.
See also: Dev, Ataturk, countless others.
Atatürk was also a HP in his personal life and was behind the ethnic cleansing of the Syrian Hatay province in 1939, so he would be a clearer HP for me.
Voted HP for Indira Ghandi as well, but its a more complex case.
Like Ataturk, Indira was both and FF and an HP so the question doesn't really work out well. Of course, both being responsible for mass violence, I wouldn't want a beer with them.
Its a great exaggeration that Turks would have been ethnically cleansed and the country turned into a colony if not for Ataturk. Its buying into the whole Turkish nationalist "saviour of the nation" myth.
Whether the common Turk would have been worse off in the long run if the country had complied with the Sevres treaty is an interesting question. I would tend to say no, but that is a question for the history board.
While Indira Gandhi did suppres democracy in a couple of years she also reinstated it and left office when she lost an election. Ataturk remained a tyrant to the end.
Many of the problems Turkey has today with the exaggerated economic and political power of the army and the secular/Islamic conflict stems directly from his rule. His nationalism also made it impossible to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of the Kurds as well as other minorities.
But mainly he waged a war on Turkish culture and society trying like all social engineers to transform Turkey into something it wasn't and in the process fx destroying the Turkish language and a great deal of its cultural traditions.
While Indira had her own aspirations of social engineering she did not go to such extremes.
Indira Gandhi also helped liberate Bangla Desh from West Pakistani oppression and while it obviously wasn't done for idealistic motives, that still but her on the side of freedom.
The amount of blood on her hands is nowhere near comparable to Ataturk, especially if you count per capita.
Poll
