Ghandi is the face of that movement but was just the tip of what was a very bloody revolution. It is important that we think the movement was "non-violent" such that we can point to it to dissuade people from challenging the status quo in a material way.
No, the history taught about ghandi carefully selects instances of "non-violence". I don't think ghandi is responsible for how we learn about ghandi in the west.
Just like MLK is regarded as "peaceful" when in fact he and others spoke quite a bit about the fact that there was never any response from white people unless property was attacked.
