Christians had long before been subjected to periods of severe persecution, robbery, abuse and murder, but only in different regions at different times. Even during the Roman persecutions, in some provinces the Christians lived in peace while in other provinces they were being driven out of their homes, robbed and murdered. Never were they subjected to genocide throughout the entire empire at once.

Gandhi gave different messages at different times and to different audiences. Nonresistance to British occupation of India was the only practical choice as the British empire was the preeminent military power of the world, well organized, trained and equipped. Direct armed revolt against the British raj was not possible unless the British could be convinced that continued occupation of India was unprofitable – profit being the original motive for invading India. Gandhi also called the British disarmament of the Indian people the greatest crime.
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 (Beacon Press paperback edition) http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/arms_quotes.htm

On personal nonresistance and forcible defense of others: One cannot defend another from violence without simultaneously defending himself from the violence of the perpetrator which will likely be turned from the victim to the defender. The only possibility of this would be for an individual perpetrator to be subdued by the initial act of the defender/rescuer. If the first blow of the defender was insufficient to disable the perp, and the perp then attacked the defender, for the principle of non-self-defense to be adhered to would require the defender to cease and submit to whatever the perp determined to do to him. Can you imagine a soldier defending his fellows against an enemy, but refusing to defend himself when the enemy directed their attack against him? Or a policeman coming to the defense of a victim, but then, when the criminal turned his violent attention to the policeman, for the policeman to cease and put his weapon away or drop it? None of this makes any sense at all.

Jesus’ instructions were not to respond with violence to challenges to fight, which is what the blow on the cheek is. The blow on the cheek is not in itself an attempt to destroy the victim of the challenge. If you just stood there and allowed me to strike you on your cheek with full force, no second blow would be needed as you would be unconscious or dead.

Jesus also taught us not to seek revenge, that is, to “pay back” affronts and injuries. Too often personal administration of justice is ill-considered or inappropriate, or mistaken.