As I wrote there is a lot of slicing and dicing that can be done w.r.t the role of violence in the Indian independence movement. It would be naive to think that either Gandhi or the congress were unaware of that violence, or unaware of its function. But those who derive from that a failure of Gandhian pacifism, employ a rigidity of definition that is meaningless outside a dictionary. But let us not split hairs: if you disagree with my equating [Gandhian] pacifism with non-violent direct action, then I will gladly yield the word to you. I do not wish to defend the term 'pacifism' when understood to mean "turn the other cheek" (at all times).
The partition does not change anything, unless you believe that S.C.Bose and a force of impressionable young men could have avoided greater losses in the struggle (leave alone the partition).
Society can be essentially non-conflictual in a particular essential sense and analysis: one that attributes survival and success to co- operative forces. That this lies at the essence of human society (as good a thesis as the reductionist alternatives that many are consciously or subconsciously beholden to) does not remove the presence or effects of conflict, but indeed, yes, in a non-central role (which in no way diminishes the immediate force it plays in the lives of individuals).
Pacifism of the Gandhian sort neither advocates forbearance nor avoidance of a fight. Irrespective of explicit prescriptions you may find that that is what such a position implies. Not so. The differences are theoretical and tactical.
Theoretical in the sense of the aforementioned (by you and me) notions of what human society is and what the nature of the relationship between individuals is. I think the notion that one can arrive at *mass* collective action and solidarity (that is consistently present, beyond mere opportunism) from one form of atomic reasoning (self- interest), as implied by a society red in tooth and claw assumption, is much weaker than one that proceeds from an acknowledgement of the shared state and aspirations of the vast majority of the individuals. In fact, it is the former thesis that has been employed effectively by the few powerful to divide the rest.
The tactical argument for pacifism, non-violent direct action as you so correctly wrote, should be obvious.
--ravi