Not that I want to make this into a discussion, but I think one should be careful to associate Gandhi and the uprising against British colonialism - as well as the British reaction to it - with non-violence as a political means. It was not a violence-free rebellion, and even though the British didn't assasinate Gandhi, they slaughtered a great many others, whose main distinction today is that, unlike Gandhi they are mostly forgotten. Furthermore, the British arguably left their proud Indian colony in a state of disarray that bore the seeds of many new violent conflicts, e.g. regarding Kashmir or West vs. East Pakistan (once one country, the latter today known as Bangladesh) or between Hindus and Moslems in today's India. Non-violence is an idea from a David Attenborough movie, wanting to make us believe that overall the indepedence of India was handled in a quite civilised manner; reality is something else.

That ought to do it for today's sermon...