"Of course the problem with with non-violence is that it is democratic. You aren't going to select that strategy if you don't believe you have any hope of getting the support of the people."
Pacifism works if one assumes that society is essentially non-conflictual, or only trivially so. But if opposing interests are substantial, then entrenched power will not give up without a fight. If the latter is true, then pacifism could only be a counsel of forebearance in the face of domination.
Democracy only really makes sense if one assumes that there are substantial differences to be argued out, so a pacific society would have no need of it.
Ravi is right to say that Gandhi achieved a great deal with non-violent direct action, but it ought to be said that though that was Congress' official policy there was in fact quite a lot of violent protests in the Quit India campaign. More problematically, Britain succeeded in dividing India, which engendered a great deal of violence that Congress was not able to contain.