revolution is impossible without violence

I believe that revolution is impossible without violence. As we all know, Gandhi led a nonviolent revolution. Some of Gandhi's tips on having a successful revolution was to be pro-active, nonviolent and to have massive numbers.  Gandhi was a successful leader and was successful in leading a nonviolent revolution, but was the revolution really nonviolent? I've heard some people say that Gandhi was more violent than Hitler, which I don't believe, but because of him, British imperialism lasted longer in India through Gandhi's actions. Gandhi and his followers were leading a nonviolent revolution, but I'm sure that some of the people that were opposing the revolution used violence.  A good example is the occupy movement.  The protestors in this movement were completely harmless, yet they were treated with violence and cruelty.  Today, with the help of social media, we are able to capture and witness every violent event because of YouTube. Back then during the Gandhi revolution, there was no YouTube or cell phones that could capture the behind the scenes of a revolution or any event taking place.  Today, before you know it, the event that occurred 3 minutes ago right in front of you is already on YouTube. A revolution always leads to violence because of the people who are against the revolution. If the Gandhi revolution was violent, every other revolution would be violent.