Gandhi - spelt that way please - didn't believe in "passivity" either. Non-violent resistance is anything but passive.

"Passivity" doesn't challenge violence, it seems to collude in it. The effect of passivity on people engaged in violence is likely to make them feel justified in their violence, and contempt towards those who submit to it without a struggle as cowards. People who resist with all their strength, but refuse to kill, can't be seen as cowards, though they can be seen as crazy.

In any struggle there is a high chance of getting killed, and that's every bit as true of non-violence, as Gandhi recognised, and exemplified. Whether it would work in all circumstances is questionable, but part of that is because to have a good chance of working it needs to be adopted at a far earlier stage than people imagine, while there is still a possibility of reminding people of what they share across the differences.