The First World War, Khilafat, and Non-Cooperation

The massacre of an unarmed crowd exposed the brutality of colonial rule and caused widespread anger among Indians. It weakened confidence in British justice and encouraged stronger participation in the national movement. Therefore, option C is correct. Trust did not increase, foreign cloth was unrelated, and the movement did not end completely.

After the First World War, Indian Muslims feared that the victorious Allied powers would weaken or remove the Ottoman Caliph, who was regarded by many Muslims as an important religious authority. The Khilafat Movement expressed this concern. Therefore, option A is correct; the other rulers were not its focus.

The famous leaders of the Khilafat Movement were brothers Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali, commonly called the Ali brothers. They mobilised support for the protection of the Ottoman Caliph's position and worked with the wider nationalist cause. Hence option B is correct; the other named pairs were not Khilafat leaders.

Gandhi linked the Khilafat issue with the national movement to build Hindu-Muslim unity and bring more Muslims into a common anti-colonial struggle. A united mass movement could put greater pressure on British rule. Therefore, option C is correct; selling cloth, raising taxes or saving government schools was not the purpose of this link.

The Non-Cooperation Movement was based on the idea that British rule depended on the cooperation of Indians. If people surrendered titles, left government schools and colleges, boycotted courts and rejected foreign goods, colonial authority would weaken without armed rebellion. Thus option A is correct; the other choices contradict this strategy.

Gandhi insisted that the Non-Cooperation Movement should follow the principle of ahimsa, or non-violence. People were expected to resist unjust rule through peaceful boycott and refusal to cooperate, not through physical attacks. Therefore, option B is correct. Violent struggle, foreign trade and monarchy are not the guiding principles of this movement.

The Congress first approved the idea of Non-Cooperation at the Calcutta special session in September 1920, and the programme was finally adopted at the Nagpur session in December 1920. Since the question asks where the programme was accepted, option C, the Nagpur session, is the correct answer.

The Non-Cooperation programme was finally adopted at the annual Congress session held in Nagpur in December 1920. The date followed the Rowlatt Satyagraha and Jallianwala Bagh events and came before the nationwide launch in 1921. Therefore, option A is correct; 1919 and 1947 refer to different historical events, while January 1921 is too late.

The Non-Cooperation programme was approved by the Indian National Congress at its Nagpur session in December 1920, and the movement was launched in January 1921. It joined the demand for swaraj with the Khilafat cause. Therefore, January 1921 is correct. April 1919 refers to the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy, December 1930 belongs to the Civil Disobedience phase, and August 1942 marks the Quit India Movement.

Government schools operated within the colonial educational system, so students and families who left them were withdrawing cooperation from a British institution. This action was part of the Non-Cooperation Movement and encouraged the development of national schools and colleges. Thus, option A is correct. Buying foreign cloth, demanding higher taxes, and joining the army were not meanings of this educational boycott.

Lawyers were asked to withdraw from colonial courts because these courts represented the legal and administrative authority of British rule. By refusing to practise there, they participated in the strategy of non-cooperation. Therefore, option B, courts, is correct. Factories, railways, and post offices were not the institutions specifically abandoned by lawyers as part of this programme.

Titles such as honours or awards granted by the colonial government symbolised public recognition of British authority. Returning them was a deliberate moral and political act of refusing that recognition and withdrawing cooperation. Hence, option A is correct. Buying foreign cloth, thanking British rule, or demanding higher taxes either contradicted the movement or described unrelated actions.

Foreign cloth was an important part of colonial trade and competed with Indian handloom production. Boycotting it reduced demand for imported British goods, weakened colonial economic interests, and encouraged people to buy or produce swadeshi cloth. Therefore, option A is correct. The other options would increase colonial profit or harm Indian producers, which was the opposite of the movement’s purpose.

The word swadeshi means accepting and using goods produced in one’s own country. During the national movement, it encouraged Indian production, supported local workers and weavers, and worked together with the boycott of foreign goods. Thus, option B is correct. Supporting foreign rule, increasing taxes, and military recruitment do not express the economic and nationalist meaning of swadeshi.

Khadi was hand-spun and hand-woven cloth associated with Indian labour, local production, and economic independence. Wearing it expressed opposition to imported foreign cloth and support for swadeshi. It therefore became a visible symbol of self-reliance and national unity during the Non-Cooperation Movement. Option C is correct; foreign rule, feudal rent, and government employment do not explain khadi’s political and economic symbolism.

Burning foreign cloth was a public and dramatic way of rejecting imported goods and declaring support for swadeshi. It showed that participants were willing to sacrifice or discard foreign garments in protest against colonial economic policies. Therefore, option A is correct. Welcoming foreign cloth or helping British mills contradicts the action, while increasing taxes is an unrelated political demand.

The colonial councils were political institutions created within British rule. Boycotting their elections meant refusing to participate in or legitimise that system and withdrawing cooperation from colonial governance. Thus, option A is correct. Increasing foreign trade, raising peasants’ rent, and accepting government titles were not the purpose of the electoral boycott and conflicted with the movement’s objectives.

Gandhi believed that a mass movement could succeed only if participants remained disciplined and committed to non-violence. A staged programme allowed the leadership to expand participation gradually, explain each action, and control the risk of disorder. Therefore, option A is correct. Selling foreign cloth, strengthening British rule, or increasing taxes were not aims of Non-Cooperation and contradict its nationalist purpose.

The Non-Cooperation Movement was planned to advance gradually through the boycott of colonial institutions and goods. After people had sufficiently withdrawn cooperation, Gandhi proposed that the movement could enter a more confrontational final stage involving refusal to pay taxes. Therefore, option C is correct. The other options either supported colonial rule or contradicted the boycott programme.

A major part of Non-Cooperation was the boycott of institutions run or supported by the colonial government. Students participated by leaving government schools and colleges, while some joined national educational institutions. Thus option A is correct. Selling foreign cloth, increasing taxes, or joining the British army did not represent the students’ form of non-cooperation.