Was Gandhi passive-aggressive

This is a fascinating question. Looking at his methods to do civil disobedience,

I would say that the main characteristic of them is turning the aggression of the British colonial power on itself.

He was a master at producing the effect of showing sheer, brute military force against a defenseless populace. The "prophet in rags" was able to show the restraining forces of police and military fighting against a non-enemy, the local peasants, without no weapons whatsoever.

This peaceful methods of non-violent resistance are indeed not using violence; what is surprising is that even not having one aggressive action, they are able to destroy military discipline and morale.

What is the fun of going to war if the enemy doesn't react? when there is absolutely no violent response, the use of force begins to be experienced as ridiculous, unnecessary and unjust.

This is what did the Brits in: to be seen as massacring unarmed civilians and thus depicted as sanguinary, cruel and stupidly violent destroyed troops' morale and forced them to drop their arms.