what if a non-violent aproach does not generate attention in general, why would for example the UN care about a few thousand protesters somewhere in say india, why would even the governement themselves care if it happens somewhere far away from their seat of power in an area that is inhabited by an ethnic group that is too small to hold actual political power in a democracy, people who do suffer from bad governance but who might not be able to mount a massive strike or protest march big enough to actually get enough attention to their cause. This might result in those dissafected people to see a possibility in military measures.
So what if strictly non-violent measures alone fail?
also a while ago i watched a video about a social-movement in India composed almost entirely of women and besides building schools and generaly trying to build a bit of better governance, they where also known for beating up corrupt officials.
here's the link. as it might be something interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXwH-kjSUSs

also one element that seems in common in several media actions that suceeded in completing political goals, is the ability of the "winning" side to portray themselves as victims.
in this way a protest against a certain issue is more likely to achieve its goal if they are for example shot upon by the governement, because it will generate more international and internal outrage.