Gandhi didn't "succeed" in a vacuum, and especially not due to "British sensibilities". The British Empire as a whole was an unwieldy and increasing unprofitable venture(not in small part to the threat of revolt and Civil Disobedience from occupied regions) for a country that had been devastated through the damages and effort of fighting the largest war in human history.
If colonised countries had not been actively(and violently) trying to get rid of their colonisers, the British Empire could have persisted indefinitely.
Violence is much more effective than non-violence in trying to get rid of any oppressor. Consider this: any State can deal with 5-10% of its population not working/paying taxes and "non-violently" resisting(these days even property crime can get you counted as a violent protestor). States would be much more hard pressed to deal with even 1% of their population in active, armed revolt against them.
If colonised countries had not been actively(and violently) trying to get rid of their colonisers, the British Empire could have persisted indefinitely.
Violence is much more effective than non-violence in trying to get rid of any oppressor. Consider this: any State can deal with 5-10% of its population not working/paying taxes and "non-violently" resisting(these days even property crime can get you counted as a violent protestor). States would be much more hard pressed to deal with even 1% of their population in active, armed revolt against them.