Why Non Violence

After the Baroda incident and the Dera incident, we again need to revisit the question, why was Gandhi against violence, isn't violence a faster and easier way to get what is right?

From what I have understood there are some other aspects which come into play before we get the main answer.

1. What is right and whose right is actually right or put more eloquently one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, if you and I can justify violence for some purpose then so can everybody else. Like one of my naughty uncles in his youth said "I can't be wrong till I admit to be wrong and I refuse to admit that I'm wrong whatever you might say"

2. What does violence breed? The gangster whose kid saw him being shot dead like a dog on the street right before his eyes by the police, or a native in Afghanistan whose house was mistakenly bombed by US forces who are they expected to grow up to love or hate?

Violence in all its totality whether at a broader picture or at the individual level can only breed more hate and violence. Violence is not a solution, it is an event with repercursions going long and farther than the original act.

We used violence in parts to get the British out of the country, we use violence in parts even today to get what we want, we didn't learn then, we haven't learnt now...