Skepticism about the national movement

I was talking to a friend and was surprised to see his attitude
towards our national leaders and kind of realized that such was the
outlook that most of the young men today carry in their minds. Call it
their colonial legacy or the regular skeptical culture that has been
evolving over the decades, thanks to the inadequate teaching
methodologies of the primary schools where history and the national
movement is taught as a "rote learning" memorizing exercise. This sort
of skepticism is found in particularly those who tend to take up
Science subjects (engineering etc.) after their school education. I
myself am a final year computer science student at IIT Bombay and have
seen widespread negligence over here with regards to our own history.
Its not possible to justify and clarify each and every act of the
national movement here but there are a few issues I would like to
consider. First would be why was our national movement such
non-violent, why could not we revolt like France or US and achieve our
independence in a shorter span of time ? To find an answer to this
question we first need to examine the religious baggage that most of
the population carried. We Hindus (Referring to Hindustan and not the
religion) have been stern followers of our faiths particularly the
peasants and the village dwellers which formed the bulk of the
population and whose cooperation was a must for the movement to
succeed. All the religions condemn violence. Its a "paap" or a sin to
kill thy fellowmen, and the major oppressors or the agents of the
British, the Zamindars were considered to be brethren. The people of
our country would have preferred to bear the "economic hardships"
imposed by the British rather than taking up arms. Hence we can in a
nutshell say that "Ours being a deeply religious country, the
inhabitants would have been much more comfortable with a non violent
movement rather than fighting with guns and swords". Hence Gandhiji
was in all aspects correct to choose the path of non-violence while
launching the national movement. The second question that I would like
answer, that is sometimes assumed to be obvious is that did the
National Movement had any role at all in securing the independence for
our nation? Many theorists usually European claim that "It was
entirely the brunt of Hitler's attack and the subsequent bankruptcy of
the British,disabling them from maintaining an army so huge in this
land" that they hand no option but to leave India. Well there are two
major points here. First the entire concept of a nation state emerged
due to the nationalistic movement. It was the British educated
intelligentsia that was able to explain people that how they were
being exploited. Colonization is always the colonization of the mind
where the colonized is somehow made to believe that the colonizer is
superior and its for their own good that they are being ruled by a
foreign superior nation. No nation can colonize another just by mere
arms and force, it has to rule their minds. This veil that had been
very strategically imposed upon the minds of the Indians was removed
by the nationalists through their writings, they were successful in
exposing the true character of the British Raj. The whole mass of the
movement which included the armed forces of the likes of Subhash
Chandra Bose were a major reason for overthrowing the British rule, a
proof of this is the example of the British colonies in Africa like
Congo, Zimbabwe etc. which had to carry the yoke of the British rule
till the 60s/70s. In a nutshell we can state that the nationalists
played the pivotal role in securing India's freedom using the most
appropriate weapon of non-violence.