Relevance of Ahimsa in the new Millenium

I have always wondered how relevant was Mahatma Gandhi's Ahimsa in getting India its freedom. Would we have achieved freedom earlier had we not followed Ahimsa? Or did we get the freedom inspite of Mahatma Gandhi's strategy of non violence?

We, Indians, somehow do not possess the ability to do a honest introspection of our past and especially our leaders. It is as if the leaders are incapable of making mistakes and they were perfect in all aspects. Gandhiji's idiocracies (and there were many) are gloated over, Nehru's roving eye not discussed, Indira Gandhi's dictatorial tendencies were given a spin as being decisive and even Morarji Desai's propensity to drink urine was dismissed as a quirk. Criticising them is sacrilege.

My take on this is that India would have achieved freedom anyway. Look at the number of countries under the British Empire that got freedom around the time we got freedom. The British had realized that having colonies was becoming a drain on the exchequer post World War 2. The colonies had served their purpose and in management parlance has ceased to be a Cash Cow but have rather become Dogs, if one were to apply the BCG matrix. In fact they had become Dogs much before the WW II. The British were trying to find a suitable exit strategy. We would have got independence anyway. To justify my point, I request you to look at the countries under the Empire that got independence in late 1940's and early 1950's. None of them had a freedom struggle worth its name. It was a classic case of divestiture. Where Gandhi succeeded in was uniting a nation as diverse as India. To that extent he was a great leader. But his philosophy of 'Ahimsa' worked only because the opponents were British (who is supposed to have a sense of fair play, though this is a myth) and because they were looking for an exit strategy anyway. I presume Gandhiji was smart enough to know this. Frankly, his Ahimsa would not have worked against someone like Hitler or Musslolini. Also, remember that he exhorted Indians to support the British in an armed war during WWII. He did not ask them to resort to Ahimsa there.

How relevant is Ahimsa or non-violence in today's world which currently thrives on violence? This thought came to my mind when I read about the patient way in which Dalai Lama and the Tibetans have been conducting their struggle for Tibetan autonomy and independence for decades against Chinese who have suppressed them in all possible ways. The world has turned a blind eye towards Tibetans and the Chinese have aggressively pursued a multi prong strategy to virtually destroy the Tibetans. What has Dalai Lama's non violence achieved? Nothing. The latest case of Tibetan uprising against the Chinese prior to Beijing Olympics is a classic case. Same is the case of the struggle waged by Aun Sun Suu Kyi against the dictatorial Burmese military junta. Again with no success. What would Gandhiji have done if he were in the place of Dalai Lam and Aun Sun Suu Kyi? An interesting proposition don't you think...........your thoughts in the comments section are welcome