While Gandhi was truly pacifist and non-violent, he was neither passive nor stupid. In the day and age when there was no tv no Internet, Gandhi knew how to mobilize Indian masses in a highly organized way. Gandhi knew that British power rested on 2 things... economy and military. He asked Indians to stop paying taxes and stop buying British manufactured good (instead make their own) to hit British economy. He urged Indians to join British army to fight WW1 even though he was against violence.....so that Indians get trained in modern military tactics and learn the use of fire arms. That way the base of military power would shift from the hands of the British over to Indians.
Gandhi did not intend to use the firearms or the Indian military against the British but by end of WW2 there were 3 million highly trained Indian soldiers who have seen combat in Europe, Africa and South East Asia. One word from Gandhi and they could potentially wipe out the British Empire. And 2 years after WW2 Britain decided to give India independence.
Your reading/spin of the Gandhi quote is incorrect and a bit disingenuous. Even when you use the full quote the context is still clear that Gandhi was saying that the arms ban was wrong. He advocated serving in the British military as a way to get the ban withdrawn so that the people could be armed, which was desirable for multiple reasons.
Gandhi was NOT “truly pacifist” - he was merely intelligent enough to understand that due to the unique nature of British culture, pacifist tactics were the way to go in their struggle for independence. If instead of the British Gandhi had been dealing with the Germans/Nazis those tactics would have been suicidal.
Gandhi was not an absolute pacifist, nor a saint. He was a canny, pragmatic political strategist. And, quite an opportunist when necessary. Your assertion that he’d have preferred the extermination of the Indian people to using violence is complete nonsense.