"He knew that the British Government would not kill his followers if they offered no violence but sat passively."

Ever heard of the Amritsar massacre? Gabdhi knew that the British were quite capable of killing unarmed opponents. He also knew that Inbdians were quite capable of turning to violent revolt.

Once again, non-violence is not about not being on the receiving end of violence, it's about refusing to be on the delivering end. Nobody says that because soldiers get killed in a war that in itself means that the war was unsuccesful. Where does the idea come from that when non-violent activists get killed this must mean that non-violence doesn't have a chance of working?