ajaypal.com

IMHO There are basically three ways to fight an adversary (though adversary may not be correct word here)

• Sail with the wind. Submit to the adversary even if you may be right. Means one does not have the moral courage required to be considered a human being. Easiest way to survive.
• Fight back/ hit back (use Guns or other violent means including words) kill or be killed. But this is a never ending cycle, one feels itself to be victim in (so called) self defense, for own rights, for country, for people kills another then the other feeling victimised will repeat the same cycle. And eye for an eye. Some what easy, you don't need to think beyond your immediate goals, can behave in a beastly manner.
• Have the courage to show your adversary the right way by assuming that he/she is also a humane and is able to see the truth/ the right way. And most important being the one yourself first, what you expect others to be. Having the courage to face defeat (though temporary) and death too. And it starts from non-violence by behaving like a humane and by suppressing the animal feelings inside. Anyone can hit back when confronted but only if we are humane. The most difficult but the right way.

As Gandhi Ji once said "Whenever you are confronted with an opponent. Conquer him with love." Though to some it may seem like an absurd statement but that may be how we should settle issues, like humans and not like wild animals. It is not a small contribution, to show the country (rather the whole world) the virtues of non-violence.
Regarding was it violence or non-violence or the fatigue of war that forced England to vacate India. At the time of Independence India was no match for British military might even after WW-II. If British wanted they would have held onto us for a much longer period. Though all of the above factors may have contributed in their own means to Indian independence. But not all English (even of that time) were wild beasts, trying to hold on to India at any cost, and deserved to be killed. They also had their share of good people who supported Indian Independence and listened to reason. They also had their shares of people who could be considered the opposite. Like the current situation in India, we have fundamentalists we have moderates (the so called sickularist) and some are in between.
When ever a terrorist attack happens in India (even in US) the fundamentalists call for a fight back, for drastic measures, for hitting back in similar manners. The violence gives strength to such people and the terrorists, those who feed on fear and on other people's misery. Had the Indian freedom movement been violent the fundamentalists in England would have been much stronger in their drastic measures.

Now who we consider a Leader (rather a strong and courageous leader)

• Some one who can take drastic steps, that are visible that are earth shaking
• Some one who can utter strong words, can take strong stands that are drastic.
• Some one who puts the country, the religion above itself and the people.
• Some one who can inspire its people to romanticize violence

Hmmm.... as someone said non-violence is not inaction. It is not discussion. It is not for the timid or weak. Non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to sacrifice. It is the patience to win. And let me admit like all mortals even I find this path very very difficult and not easy to follow.