The connection between Gandhi’s and the Indian National Congress’s larger nonviolent civil disobedience operations and the violent nationalist movement in India is a complex and nuanced one. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Shared goal of independence: Both the nonviolent civil disobedience movement led by Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, as well as the violent nationalist movement, shared the common goal of achieving independence from British colonial rule. This overarching objective was a unifying force, despite the divergent approaches.
2. Complementary roles: While Gandhi and the Congress espoused nonviolent civil disobedience as the primary tactic, the violent nationalist movement played a complementary role in putting additional pressure on the British and keeping the independence struggle at the forefront of public consciousness.
3. Radicalization of the movement: The failure of repeated nonviolent campaigns to achieve immediate results, combined with the British government’s harsh crackdown on civil disobedience, contributed to the radicalization of some segments of the nationalist movement. This led to the rise of more militant, violent groups and individuals.
4. Differing philosophies and strategies: Gandhi and the Congress believed in non-violence as a moral and strategic imperative, whereas the violent nationalist movement saw armed struggle as a necessary means to achieve independence. This ideological divide created tensions within the broader independence movement.
5. Relationship dynamics: While the nonviolent and violent strands of the nationalist movement were distinct, there were instances of cooperation and overlap. Some individuals and groups transitioned between the two approaches, depending on the political circumstances and perceived efficacy of each approach.
6. British response: The British authorities often conflated the nonviolent and violent elements of the independence movement, using the threat of militant nationalism to justify the harsh suppression of even the peaceful civil disobedience campaigns.

It is important to note that the relationship between the nonviolent and violent nationalist movements was not one of simple opposition or antagonism. Instead, it was a complex, dynamic, and evolving relationship, where the two strands of the independence struggle coexisted, sometimes in tension, and at other times, in a more symbiotic manner.