I get not liking Jinder. No one is above criticism, and I would actually prefer he not amass the of wealth of defensive stans that top guys like Cena and Reigns have. Blind love is just as annoying as blind hate.
But with Jinder, there's this tinge of
that I can't look past. Like all the people who say he's somehow disgracing the title or him holding it lowers its prestige. Really? So we're ignoring all the bullshyt reigns that have happened in the past? We gonna ignore Backlund in 94, Vince McMahon, and half of Cena's reigns being him hot potato-ing the title between himself, Edge, Punk, and Orton? Bruh, they put the belt on Sheamus. Sheamus! Three times! But Jinder is the one that's the problem.
Sure, they could have built him up longer, but Jinder isn't the first person to get hot shotted to the title and he won't be the last. Even if you wanna say some shyt like "it's only cause of India," so what? It's a scripted TV show. Every WWE champion in history is the result of a business decision.
From Hogan, to Bret, to Austin, to Cena, every single person that held the belt did so primarily because WWE was trying to sell tickets and merch. And like
@Momentum said, if it was someone like Adam Cole or Drew McIntyre (who was also in 3MB), half these smarks wouldn't care. That's no disrespect to those cats, but it is what it is.
Again, no one has to like Jinder. I don't even think he's that's great a wrestler (not like that matters to being WWE champ). But you can't tell me the anger he causes doesn't have something to do with the color of his skin.