Throughoul the history, mole leoders olwoys leod us lo violence ond conflicl. lf o society is governed by female leoders, it witt be more peoceful. To whol exlenl do you ogree or disogree with this o pinion?

LOOKING INTO THE HISTORY, IT MIGHT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT BOTH MEN OR WOMEN AS LEADERS HAVE LED TO VIOLENCE AND WAR ALONGWITH PEACE AND HARMONY. THUS, I DISAGREE TO THIS OPINION TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT MEN ARE MORE AGGRESSIVE OR VIOLENT AS COMPARED TO WOMEN, BUT, IT MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE TRUE. A BEAUTIFUL EXAMPLE WOULD BE OF MAHATMA GANDHI-THE MAN WHO CHOSE NON-VIOLENCE OVER VIOLENCE AND CONTRIBUTED TO INDIA’S INDEPENDENCE. ALTHOUGH, IF WE TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF BHAGAT SINGH, HE CHOSE VIOLENCE OVER NON-VIOLENT PROTESTS. SO IT WOULD BE SAFE TO SAY THAT IT DEPENDS ON A MAN’S IDEAS AND HIS WAYS OF EXPRESSION. THE ABOVE STATEMENT COULD BE TRUE FOR WOMEN TOO, LIKE, RANI LAKSHMI BAI OR JHANSI KI RANI CHOSE WAR OVER NEGOTIATION, INDICATING A VIOLENT NATURE. WHEREAS, KASTURBAI, WIFE OF MAHATMA GANDHI ALSO HELPED HIM AND SUPPORTED NON-VIOLENCE. FURTHERMORE, GENDER STEREOTYPING IS NOT A VERY GOOD REASON TO CLASSIFY OR IDENTIFY THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LEADERS. A GOOD LEADER, REGARDLESS OF WHAT GENDER THEY ARE, WOULD ALWAYS LOOK OUT FOR THEIR PEOPLE AND MAY EVEN FIGHT FOR THEM, VIOLENTLY OR NOT. THUS, WHAT MATTERS IS THE RESULT OF THE LEADERSHIP NOT THE STYLE OF LEADERSHIP. LEADERS MAY COME AND GO, BUT THEIR PRACTICES ARE REMEMBERED. SO, IT IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT TO ADOPT A PARTICULAR PRACTICE AFTER PROPER PLANNING AND THINKING, AS WRONG DECISIONS MADE BY LEADERS MAY HAUNT THEM EVEN AFTER THEIR DEATH. FOR EXAMPLE, ADOLF HITLER ISS STILL CONSIDERED A VILLIAN DUE TO HIS UNNECESSARY VIOLENCE AND BHAGAT SINGH IS STILL CONSIDERED A HERO, DUE TO HIS THOUGHTFUL ACTS OF VIOLENCE FOR A GOOD CAUSE. THIS RE-EMPHAZIES MY DISAGREEMENT TOWARDS THE IDEA MENTIONED IN THE QUESTION.