While members of the post-1971 NIC publicly embraced Gandhi and his principle of non-violent resistance (satyagraha) on every possible occasion, they did not openly criticise the activities of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the armed wing of the ANC. When it was put to Jerry Coovadia that there appeared to be a contradiction between some activists’ involvement in MK and the organisation's public endorsement of Gandhi, he responded:

In a 1968 call for Indian youth to join MK, Yusuf Dadoo explained that passive resistance was a method, not a principle, of the Indian Congresses:

Passive resistance was never the ideology of the organisation, although it had been used as a method of struggle since it was introduced by Gandhiji in the early part of this century. The principles of Satyagraha as enunciated by Gandhiji were never accepted as a creed by the Indian people. It is true that in the [South African Indian Congress], as a national organisation representing all interests and all viewpoints, there are some leaders − like Dr. G.M. [Monty] Naicker and Nana Sita − who implicitly believe in Gandhian principles and who have lived by them; and of course we honour their convictions and their sufferings for their convictions.

Indian activists joined MK from its inception and a significant tranche of NIC members supported the building of ANC underground structures. NIC activists such as Ebrahim Ebrahim, Billy Nair and Sunny Singh were among the first to be imprisoned on Robben Island for MK activities. Even the most Gandhian of Gandhians in the NIC, George Sewpersadh, defended the turn to armed struggle when he said:

I never really joined the armed struggle, but I was never opposed to it. The ANC, when it was banned, it couldn't operate here in South Africa and the people had no other alternative but to be involved in armed struggle. So I think from that point of view it was justified.