Why are you against violence?
Is it because it was an impractical means for India to go about fighting for their independence?
Or were you against violence because you believe that it is not morally justifiable for a people to use violence to fight against an oppressive government?

I am against violence due to my upbringing and my culture. In Gujarat where I grew up, there was a lot of influence of the Jain religion, which was formed solely based on non-violence.

I am not against violence; I am against injustice. In fact, I have done my part in the World Wars, thus being a willing party to the warfare.

Of course, India being the country of the poor and the exploited had no means of fighting the British enterprise. But a handful of army, however powerful, cannot rule millions of citizens who are uncooperative. So as long as we fought against the British (violent or non-violent means) we would have won the freedom.

India could have won freedom about ten years earlier than it did through some violence against the British. But we were not only fighting the British, but also our own causes of poverty, unemployment, and untouchability. A nation becoming free after a violent struggle is bound to capture power in few hands and the suffering of India's large masses would not have changed if we became free by violent means. I wanted people of India to partner with the English people after independence, so a peaceful transfer of power was necessary.