I agree with Jace on this.  Who cares if Sharpe fits your particular definition of a progressive? The important thing is that he has provided progressives with an alternative to violence with which to fight for social justice. If non-progressives want use his methods too, better still.

Mikhail Kalashnikov is by most definitions of political ideology, a leftist and a "progressive." That hasn't stopped people from using his invention -- the AK-47 --  in clearly anti-progressive activities. And just the fact of violence taints any claim of Mikhail Kalashnikov to he progressive label in ways that simply aren't there for Sharpe and his promotion of non-violence as a political method.

Nothing in Sharpe's work has anything to do with state support. A fact that some states may have financially supported work using his strategies in no way implies that state support is necessary or even helpful for most ways they might be employed.

Finally, if the US or any other government is financially supporting educational projects to teach non-violent political organizing methods, that's a progressive thing that progressives should support in general, even if we don't support other things that our governments do or the policy objectives which non-violent methods might achieve.  For example, we can all support elections as a progressive way of changing governments even if we don't support the election of a certain party to office.