The First World War, Khilafat, and Non-Cooperation

The governing concept is mass mobilisation: a national movement becomes broad only when different social groups connect their local grievances with a common political demand. Peasants, students, traders, workers and other participants gave Non-Cooperation a wider social base, while shared opposition to colonial rule linked their aims. Therefore option A is correct. The other choices are too narrow: British approval was not required, foreign trade was not the central cause, and soldier recruitment alone could not create a mass movement.

Swadeshi means preference for goods produced within one’s own country. In the Non-Cooperation Movement, this principle was expressed through boycotting foreign cloth and other imported goods, while encouraging Indian production and consumption. It therefore connected political protest with economic nationalism. Options B and C support colonial institutions, while D directly contradicts the swadeshi principle.

Non-Cooperation depended on large numbers of people withdrawing cooperation while maintaining non-violence. Discipline was necessary because uncontrolled anger, attacks, or destruction could change the character of the movement and give the government a justification for repression. Option A states this connection. B contradicts non-violence, C denies mass participation, and D misunderstands an anti-colonial movement.

Gandhi’s politics treated non-violence as more than a temporary tactic: it was the ethical discipline that made mass resistance legitimate. When Chauri Chaura involved serious violence, he withdrew the campaign even though public participation had expanded. Therefore option A is correct. Option B contradicts his principles, while C and D falsely portray the decision as fear of the people or a secret colonial agreement.

The correct answer is B, Mahatma Gandhi. He organised and led the nationwide Rowlatt Satyagraha in 1919 to oppose the repressive Rowlatt Act through non-violent resistance. General Dyer was associated with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, while Curzon and Clive belonged to other periods and roles in colonial history. Thus Gandhi is the only correct leader among the choices.

The movement combined the boycott of foreign goods with the promotion of Indian-made products. People were encouraged to use swadeshi goods, especially homespun cloth, so that consumption itself would support Indian producers and weaken colonial economic control. Therefore option A is correct. Foreign goods were to be rejected, while titles and government orders are not consumer goods.

Foreign cloth represented the economic reach of colonial rule and competed with Indian hand-spinning and weaving. Burning it publicly transformed an economic boycott into a visible act of protest. The act expressed rejection of colonial dependence and demonstrated commitment to swadeshi and national self-respect. Option A is therefore correct. The remaining options are inconsistent: the action did not benefit British mills, popularise foreign cloth, or directly increase taxes.

Khadi was made through Indian spinning and weaving, so purchasing and wearing it supported indigenous labour and local production. It also offered a practical way to reject imported cloth. Because people wore it as a visible sign of commitment, khadi acquired cultural meanings of unity, dignity, simplicity, and self-reliance. Option A is correct; the other options wrongly connect khadi with foreign mills, soldiers alone, or colonial honours.

Khadi represented self-reliance and was promoted as an important symbol of the national movement, but producing hand-spun and hand-woven cloth required considerable labour. Its price could therefore be higher than that of mass-produced mill cloth. Poor families had to prioritise affordable clothing, even when they supported swadeshi ideals. Option A is correct; khadi was not foreign, restricted to officials, or completely banned.

Peasants did not experience colonial rule only as an abstract political issue. They faced high rents, forced labour in some areas, landlord or official pressure, and other forms of exploitation. When they joined the national movement, they naturally connected its promise of freedom with relief from these local burdens. Option A is correct. The other options do not explain peasant grievances or the varied regional forms of the movement.

Gandhian non-cooperation rested on the principle that an unjust government survives only when people obey, serve and support it. If citizens peacefully withdrew that cooperation—for example, by returning titles, leaving official institutions and rejecting foreign goods—the moral and practical authority of colonial rule would weaken. This was a form of disciplined, non-violent resistance, not violent revolt. Therefore option A states the central moral idea; B, C and D contradict it.

The governing concept is the emergence of mass nationalism. Through the Rowlatt Satyagraha, Gandhi used satyagraha and non-violence to organise opposition beyond a limited group of educated leaders, encouraging participation across different regions. Thus, option A is correct and shows his development as an all-India mass leader. Options B, C and D contradict the movement’s objectives and methods.

The governing concept is the leadership of the Khilafat Movement. Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali, popularly called the Ali brothers, mobilised Muslims to defend the position of the Ottoman Caliph after the First World War. They worked with other leaders and helped connect the Khilafat issue with the wider Non-Cooperation Movement. Thus option A is correct; the other options falsely associate them with unrelated events or institutions.

Awadh peasants faced high rents, insecure tenancy, illegal dues and begar, or forced unpaid labour, under landlords and their agents. When they heard the language of swaraj and Non-Cooperation, many connected it with relief from these immediate rural burdens. Their interpretation therefore gave the national movement a specific local meaning. Option A is correct. The other options support colonial institutions or foreign goods and contradict the peasants’ grievances.

Baba Ramchandra helped organise peasants in Awadh around their concrete complaints, especially high rents, oppressive landlord practices and begar. Leadership transformed scattered rural discontent into collective petitions, meetings and resistance, allowing peasants to connect their local struggle with the wider national movement. Thus option A is correct. The other choices contradict the movement’s aims: peasants opposed exploitation, did not support higher rents or foreign rule, and their mobilisation expanded the rural reach of Non-Cooperation.

The governing concept is that a mass movement can acquire different meanings for different social groups. Plantation workers faced strict restrictions on leaving the estates under colonial plantation rules. Therefore, for them, swaraj meant freedom from forced confinement and the right to move freely, not merely boycott or political independence in an abstract sense. Option A is correct because it connects the workers' participation with their lived experience; the other options ignore or deny this social interpretation.

The governing principle was Gandhi's insistence that satyagraha must remain non-violent and disciplined. At Chauri Chaura, an angry crowd attacked and killed policemen, turning the protest into violence. Gandhi concluded that continuing the nationwide campaign in those conditions would violate its ethical basis, so he withdrew the Non-Cooperation Movement. Option A is correct; the other options either reverse his position or make claims not supported by the withdrawal.