What I found interesting from reading his autobiography is that he didn't consider non-violence to be an end in itself. Rather he viewed it as one tool among ma

What I found interesting from reading his autobiography is that he didn't consider non-violence to be an end in itself. Rather he viewed it as one tool among many. Edit: found the citation. http://books.google.com/books?id=RHwLqVrnXgIC&lpg=PT189&dq=long%20walk%20to%20freedom%20non%20violence&pg=PT80#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=RHwLqVrnXgIC&lpg=PT189&dq=l... >Others said that we should approach this issue not from the point of view of principles but of tactics, and that we should employ the method demanded by the conditions. If a particular method or tactic enabled us to defeat the enemy, then it should be used. In this case, the state was far more powerful than we, and any attempts at violence by us would be devastatingly crushed. This made nonviolence a practical necessity rather than an option. This was my view, and I saw nonviolence in the Gandhian model not as an inviolable principle but as a tactic to be used as the situation demanded. The principle was not so important that the strategy should be used even when it was self- defeating, as Gandhi himself believed. I called for nonviolent protest for as long as it was effective. This view prevailed, despite Manilal Gandhi's strong objections.