Leela Fernandes' article lauds the value of non-violent activism as a means to achieve political change. I find this viewpoint invaluable in creating real change to societal norms that lead to oppression of all kinds. Here's an article about how well it worked in the civil rights movement of the 1960's when used by Martin Luther King Jr. to fight the unjust laws of segregation all around the United States: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-12/opinion/mills.egypt.selma_1_selma-march-march-route-jimmie-lee-jackson?_s=PM:OPINION
Using non-violent means (as opposed to passive resistance, which even Ghandi condemned as a "weapon of the weak") completely changes the paradigm of violence to fight violence that has been used since the dawn of human "civilization"--not only by fighting various injustices, but by way of example by fighting the very fabric of violence against people of color, women, and every other oppressed people all over the world. She supports this by philosophizing that there is a certain "spirituality" (defined as an unwillingness to inflict harm on others and in turn doing only what will support life and happiness) that is required to truly drive home the importance of human value when combating societal injustices. This is not to be confused with religion, which often leads its members to engage in unethical violent practices to convert people to its aims. She also uses the example of Russia's violent socialist revolution which, while intending to keep the good of the working people in mind, ended up just shifting the imbalance of wealth and power to another group. Historically, the ideology of non-violence is effective because of its practiced legitimacy.