I think there is an assumption underlying your belief that non-violent movements need complementary violent ones for state recognition: that non-violent movemen

I think there is an assumption underlying your belief that non-violent movements need complementary violent ones for state recognition: that non-violent movements can't gain majority acceptance by the population (without needing a complement). I believe they can, furthermore I believe that the state is unable to ignore a majority non-violent movement. One example is the gay rights movement. Once critical mass is reached and culture is changed, politicians change their tune, and laws practically unwrite themselves. In the case where a minority non-violent movement necessarily stays just that, then yes I think there is a valid tactical argument to be made in having a complementary movement.