The First World War, Khilafat, and Non-Cooperation

Courts were important institutions of colonial administration, and lawyers normally supported their functioning through legal practice. When lawyers stopped attending or practising in these courts, they withdrew cooperation from the colonial justice system. Hence option A is correct. The other choices concern clothing, military recruitment, or taxation and do not describe this action.

The movement encouraged people to boycott foreign cloth and use swadeshi alternatives. This reduced the demand for imported cloth in Indian markets. When demand and sales declined, imports also fell. Thus option A is correct. The movement did not promote foreign goods, leave imports unchanged, or make foreign cloth free; those choices contradict the economic boycott.

Khadi represented self-reliance, swadeshi production, and resistance to colonial economic control. However, it was often hand-spun and hand-woven, so its price could be higher than that of cheaper mill-made cloth. Poor families had to consider affordability before adopting it. Therefore option A is correct; the other statements falsely describe khadi as foreign, military-only, or freely supplied by the government.

Students were encouraged to leave government schools as part of the educational boycott. The difficulty was that national schools and colleges, which could provide an alternative, had not been established everywhere. Some students therefore faced uncertainty about continuing their education. Option A is correct; the other choices concern unrelated claims about cloth, taxes, or courts.

At Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on 13 April 1919, General Dyer ordered troops to fire on a peaceful, largely unarmed gathering. The killing and repression shocked Indians and intensified opposition to colonial rule. Therefore option A is correct. The Dandi March and Quit India Movement occurred later, while the Simon Commission was a separate political development.

The Rowlatt Act of 1919 restricted civil liberties and permitted detention without trial, generating widespread anger. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre deepened this anger and destroyed confidence in the justice of colonial rule. Together, these events helped create the political background for Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement. Hence option B is correct; the other movements belonged to different contexts or later periods.

The movement expanded beyond a small group of political leaders because students, teachers, lawyers, traders, peasants, workers, and other sections joined its boycott and protest programmes in different regions. Their participation gave the campaign a broad social base and made it a mass movement. Therefore option B is correct; British officials, foreign trade, and the army were not its foundation.

The governing concept is that different social groups joined the national movement while connecting it with their own local grievances. In the countryside, peasants opposed high rents, excessive revenue demands and begar, or forced unpaid labour. Therefore option B is correct. Sea trade, foreign titles and postage stamps were not the main agrarian issues that brought peasants into the movement.

The governing concept is economic nationalism through swadeshi and the boycott of foreign goods. When people refused imported products, traders expected demand to shift towards Indian-made goods, helping indigenous production and commerce expand. Thus option A is correct. Strengthening British rule, sharply increasing taxes and closing government schools were not the economic benefits traders associated with swadeshi.

The governing concept is that Non-Cooperation combined political protest with economic action. Participants boycotted foreign cloth and other imported goods while encouraging swadeshi products, spinning and indigenous production. This weakened the market for colonial goods and supported Indian enterprise, so option A is correct. Free foreign cloth, higher British taxes and only contesting elections do not describe this economic programme.

The governing concept is political non-cooperation: colonial institutions gained authority from Indian participation and acceptance. By leaving government schools, courts, councils and other colonial institutions, people showed that British rule did not enjoy legitimate popular support. Therefore option C is correct. Peasants, swadeshi cloth and national schools were not the authority whose legitimacy the boycott directly attacked.

The governing concept is the restriction of civil liberties by colonial authority. The Rowlatt Act allowed the government to arrest and detain suspected political opponents without a normal judicial trial, removing important legal safeguards. Hence option A is correct. Relief for peasants, reduced taxes and granting swaraj would expand rights or welfare, whereas the Act curtailed freedom and enabled arbitrary repression.

The governing concept is the expansion of a mass national movement through the combination of related political concerns. Linking the Khilafat issue with the demand for swaraj brought many Muslim participants into a common anti-colonial campaign alongside other groups. Therefore option A is correct. The movement did not end, nor was it restricted to British people or soldiers; its social base became broader.

The governing concept of Non-Cooperation is that colonial authority depends not only on force but also on the cooperation and obedience of the governed. Gandhi argued that if Indians withdrew this cooperation from government institutions, services and policies, British rule would lose much of its practical support. Thus option A is correct; the other choices have no political or historical basis.

The governing concept is the connection between wartime hardship and political mobilisation. The First World War brought higher taxes, rising prices, shortages, forced recruitment and other pressures, producing widespread resentment. This discontent created a favourable background for Non-Cooperation, so option A is correct. The war did not immediately free India, stop every movement or abolish taxes.

The governing concept is the formation of a broad anti-colonial movement from connected experiences and issues. The war produced economic hardship and resentment; the Khilafat issue mobilised many Muslims; and Non-Cooperation organised opposition through boycotts and withdrawal. Together these developments widened resistance to colonial rule, making option A correct. They did not popularise British rule or end all taxes.

The First World War increased colonial government expenditure and placed heavier demands on Indian society. Taxes and war loans rose, prices increased, and many people faced forced or pressured recruitment. These economic hardships and political restrictions created resentment against British rule. Hence option B is correct. The war did not grant self-rule, abolish colonial laws, or permanently remove land revenue; those claims contradict the historical situation.

When wartime defence expenditure rose, the colonial government needed additional revenue. It raised taxes and obtained funds through war loans, while also increasing economic and administrative pressure on the population. Therefore option A is correct. The government did not abolish taxes, distribute free land to peasants, or grant Indians complete self-government. Those alternatives conflict with the extractive nature of colonial wartime policy.

The First World War greatly increased the colonial government's military and administrative expenditure. To collect additional revenue, the government introduced income tax and raised customs duties. These measures transferred a larger financial burden to Indian society and reflected wartime economic exploitation. Option B is correct because the policies were meant to finance war expenses, not to provide relief, promote independence, or end colonial rule.

During the First World War, the colonial government needed more soldiers and increased recruitment efforts in rural areas. When villagers were pressured or compelled to join the army, their personal freedom, family responsibilities, and livelihood were affected. Therefore option A is correct: forced recruitment created resentment because people were pushed into military service. The other options describe benefits that would not produce anger.