I’m all for peaceful solutions too, but if you look through history you’ll find plenty of morally righteous violent resistance. In this case it seems inevitable to me. The aggrieved parties here mostly come from a place that was previously violently conquered by the Mughal Empire, then later violently won their independence to form the Sikh Empire, shortly after that they were violently conquered again by the British Raj. The British Raj was ousted by nonviolent resistance, but that’s an incredible anomaly in history, and was only really possible because the British had largely lost interest in holding the colony.
The result was the partitioning of India, which worked out terribly for a lot of people. Especially the Punjabis, who’s state was cut in half and split between Islamic Pakistan, and Hindu India. Hindu Nationalism on the India side of the border has lead to decades of often violent oppression of minority group in India. Why would violent resistance not be a morally defensible response?
I also find the international coverage of this issue quite funny. If you only read international sources you might come away with the impression that this conflict is just between “farmers” and the Indian government. If you read Indian sources you’re more likely to get the impression this is a separatist conflict between “Khalistani terrorists” and the Indian government.