The First World War, Khilafat, and Non-Cooperation

The First World War increased colonial government expenditure and disrupted the economy. To finance the war, the colonial state raised taxes, imposed war loans and expanded military recruitment. Shortages, price increases and hardship affected many communities, while coercive policies deepened resentment. These conditions helped nationalist mobilisation grow. Therefore option A is correct. The war did not grant complete self-rule, abolish rent for every peasant or end colonial repression; those options contradict the historical situation.

The governing concept is the colonial financing of the First World War. Britain increased defence expenditure and recovered much of the cost from India through war loans, higher taxes and other financial demands. These measures placed an additional burden on Indian people and contributed to resentment against colonial rule. Option A is correct; the other options describe policies that were not direct consequences of wartime defence spending.

The governing concept is wartime colonial taxation. The First World War sharply increased government expenditure, so the colonial administration introduced income tax and raised customs duties to collect additional revenue. These measures helped finance the war but transferred its cost to people in India. Option A is correct. The other choices are incorrect because taxation did not grant industrial freedom, provide peasant relief or announce self-rule.

The governing concept is coercive recruitment under colonial rule. During the First World War, officials and local authorities pressured villagers to supply men for the British army. This interfered with family life, labour and personal choice, making rural communities resent both the recruitment process and the colonial government behind it. Option A is correct; free education, tax exemption and self-government would not explain this resentment.

The governing concept is the connection between material hardship and political discontent. Wartime inflation and taxation had already reduced people’s economic security. Crop failure then threatened food and income, while epidemics caused illness, deaths and social disruption. Together these crises deepened public suffering and encouraged criticism of colonial rule. Option A is correct; the other options contradict the actual effects of these disasters.

The governing concept is wartime inflation and its effect on real living standards. When prices of essential goods rise faster than wages or incomes, people can buy less with the same amount of money. In wartime India, ordinary families therefore faced greater difficulty in meeting daily needs. Option A is correct. The other choices claim automatic income growth, rent exemption or free grain distribution, none of which was the general result.

The governing concept is Gandhi’s idea of non-cooperation as non-violent withdrawal of support. Colonial administration functioned through the participation of Indian officials, workers, consumers, students and institutions. Gandhi argued that if people refused to assist unjust rule, its authority and ability to function would weaken. Option A is correct. The method did not automatically Indianise the army, abolish every tax or stop a war immediately.

The governing concept is institutional boycott as a form of non-cooperation. Government schools and courts were important parts of the colonial administrative system, so withdrawing from them challenged the claim that British institutions deserved public support. Nationalists encouraged alternative institutions and practices instead. Option A is correct. Increasing foreign trade, strengthening the army and raising peasant rent were not the purpose of this boycott.

The governing concept is coalition-building through a shared anti-colonial movement. The Khilafat issue mobilised many Indian Muslims, while Non-Cooperation expressed the broader demand for swaraj. Gandhi linked them to encourage Hindu-Muslim unity and bring more people into a common mass struggle against colonial rule. Option A is correct. The other choices either narrow the purpose to commerce or contradict the movement’s goal of popular mobilisation.

The governing concept is the post-war Khilafat question. The Ottoman Empire, whose ruler was regarded by many Muslims as the Caliph, was defeated in the First World War. Indian Muslims feared that the peace settlement would weaken or remove the Caliph’s authority and demanded protection for his position. Option A is correct. The Russian reforms, German unification and French industrial expansion were unrelated to the movement’s immediate international context.

The governing concept is identification of the leadership of the Khilafat Movement. The Ali brothers, Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali, were among its most prominent Indian leaders and worked to mobilise Muslim opinion around the protection of the Caliph’s position. Option A is correct. Bhagat Singh and Sukhdev belonged to a revolutionary tradition, while the other pairs were associated with different phases or aspects of the national movement rather than leading the Khilafat cause.

The governing concept is political unity during the national movement. Gandhi believed that cooperation with Khilafat leaders could bring many Muslims into a common anti-colonial struggle. By linking the Khilafat issue with the demand for swaraj, he hoped to build Hindu-Muslim unity and broaden mass participation. Therefore, option A is correct; the other options either support British rule or describe unrelated and contradictory aims.

The governing concept is the defence of civil liberties against colonial repression. The Rowlatt Act allowed the government to arrest and detain people without a normal judicial trial, removing important legal safeguards. This arbitrary power caused widespread public anger and led Gandhi to call for a nationwide satyagraha. Hence option A is correct; the other choices describe benefits that the Act did not provide.

The governing concept is the expansion of satyagraha from local experiments to national mass politics. Gandhi had earlier led important struggles at places such as Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad, but the Rowlatt protest connected his method with an all-India issue. It therefore marked a major national beginning of satyagraha. Option A is correct; the movement did not end British rule, create a constitution, or settle the Khilafat question.

The governing concept is the impact of colonial repression on nationalist consciousness. On 13 April 1919, troops fired on an unarmed gathering at Jallianwala Bagh, causing many deaths and injuries. The brutality shocked people and deepened distrust of British rule, strengthening the demand for national freedom. Thus option A is correct; the incident did not increase faith in colonialism or solve social and agrarian problems.

The governing concept is the historical context of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. The incident occurred on 13 April 1919, the day of Baisakhi, when many people had come to Amritsar for the fair. A gathering was also held to protest the repressive measures and arrests connected with the Rowlatt Act. Therefore option A is correct; the other occasions were not the reason for this gathering.

The governing concept is the use of coercion to enforce colonial authority. General Dyer ordered troops to fire on the unarmed crowd and later defended the action as a means of producing a moral effect and intimidating people. In the context of the movement, this meant creating fear and demonstrating the power of the colonial state. Option A is correct; the other choices are inconsistent with the violent action and its stated purpose.

The governing concept is the organisational approval and expansion of the Non-Cooperation Movement. The programme was first approved in principle at the Calcutta special session in September 1920 and was then formally adopted at the annual Congress session in Nagpur in December 1920. Since the question asks where the programme was adopted, option A is correct. The Surat, Lahore and Bombay sessions refer to different contexts or are not the correct answer here.

The governing concept is the chronology of India’s national movement. Political anger had grown after the Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, while the Khilafat issue encouraged broader mobilisation. In this setting, Gandhi and Congress launched the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920. It was withdrawn in 1922 after the Chauri Chaura incident, so option A is the only correct year; 1919 was the year of the Rowlatt Satyagraha.

The governing concept is economic nationalism through boycott and swadeshi. Foreign cloth represented the strength of British manufactured imports, while Indian handloom workers and local producers faced hardship. Refusing foreign cloth reduced demand for imported goods and encouraged people to buy or produce Indian cloth, strengthening self-reliance. Thus option A is correct; the other choices would either support colonial industry or harm the intended economic purpose.