the patidars of Kheda, had no ideological commitment to the principle of non-violence, for they often murdered each other in land disputes and used violence on a wide scale to coerce the lower castes into submission.
non-violence was rather a tactic which they preferred for two reasons - first there were less risk involved in non-violent protest; second, as owners of property, the patidars did not want any breakdown in law and order. when order was threatened they were quick to beg for help from the British, as when the Baraiyas went on the rampage in 1918. the first people to be looted in such insurrections were richer peasants and money-lenders, and as a result it was vital to them that agitations remained relatively non-violent.
movements by communities of poorer peasants and sharecroppers tended to be far more violent, for they had less to lose and suppressed as they were, violence often provided the only means by which they redress an injustice.
Because of this, property-owning peasants were on the whole welcome within the Congress than those without property