Yes, and I (and many noted historians) would argue that the threat of violent uprising was actually a far bigger factor in the struggle for independence in India than the pacifist movement which, although integral to the movement, was an in comparison minimal force to be reckoned with.

Most notably the Quit India movement was a large scale call for the people of India to rise up and there wasn't very much of a collectively agreed upon strategy so the call to action was carried out in multiple ways depending on when and where a protest was held. The movement encompassed everything from firebombing police stations and workers strikers to pacifist marches, and although the movement was ruthlessly shut down by the colonial power (in the end 736 indians and 63 police and military troops had died, and 1941 indians and 2012 police officers and troops were injured) it was undoubtedly an immensely important part of the process of decolonisation.

After the Quit India movement was shut down several guerilla forces kept the fight going and what we today would call terrorist bombings were still carried out regularly around the british neighbourhoods and/or government buildings, but what was the final and most decisive victory for the movement for independence was the mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy which started as a reaction to the persecution and imprisonment of several key guerilla fighters (most notably of the INA, The Indian National Army) where around 20 000 indian sailors took part and almost every major indian city saw great marches and riots in support of the sailors. Once again the movement was brutally shut down but it also lead the colonial power to finally see that the situation was unsustainable which lead to the first official negotiations of independence.

Source: Hutchins, Francis. India’s Revolution: Gandhi and the Quit India Movement (Harvard University Press, 1973)