The First World War, Khilafat, and Non-Cooperation

The governing concept is the use of satyagraha in an industrial labour dispute. In Ahmedabad, mill workers sought a fair settlement over wages and working conditions, while Gandhi encouraged them to use peaceful collective action and maintain discipline. Option A is correct because the campaign concerned workers' wages and interests. Indigo cultivation belongs to Champaran, the Khilafat issue concerned the Ottoman Caliph, and the salt tax became central much later.

The governing concept is the colonial restriction of civil liberties through the Rowlatt Act of 1919. The law allowed the government to arrest and detain suspected political activists without a normal trial, weakening legal safeguards and the right to defend oneself. Indians therefore regarded it as arbitrary and repressive and called it a black law. Option A is correct; the other choices either state the opposite or concern unrelated policies.

The governing concept is the emergence of mass political protest against colonial repression. The Rowlatt Act brought people in several regions into opposition, and Gandhi attempted a nationwide hartal and satyagraha. Although the campaign faced difficulties and did not end British rule, it demonstrated the potential of large public mobilisation and prepared the ground for later movements. Option A is therefore correct; the other options exaggerate or invent outcomes.

The governing concept is the impact of state violence on nationalist consciousness. On 13 April 1919, troops under General Dyer fired on an unarmed gathering at Jallianwala Bagh, causing many deaths and injuries. The incident exposed the brutality of colonial rule and destroyed faith in its claims of justice. Option A is correct because anger and distrust intensified. The other options contradict the political consequences of the massacre.

The Khilafat issue concerned the position of the Turkish Sultan, who was regarded by many Indian Muslims as the Khalifa, after the First World War. Gandhi supported the Khilafat leaders because he wanted to build Hindu-Muslim unity and widen the struggle against colonial rule. Therefore, he linked Khilafat with the Non-Cooperation Movement; the other options describe unrelated or incorrect reasons.

Maulana Mohammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali were prominent leaders of the Khilafat Movement. They mobilised Muslim opinion around the treatment of the Khalifa after the First World War and worked with Gandhi during the broader Non-Cooperation phase. The Civil Disobedience, Quit India and Swadeshi movements belonged to different contexts and were not chiefly identified with the Ali brothers.

Gandhi argued that colonial rule depended not only on force but also on the cooperation of Indian people. By surrendering titles, boycotting government institutions, courts, schools and foreign goods, people could withdraw that support peacefully. This was the central principle of Non-Cooperation. The other choices would strengthen or accept colonial rule rather than challenge it.

Government schools and colleges operated within the colonial educational framework and helped sustain loyalty to British rule. Their boycott was intended to withdraw cooperation from these institutions and encourage national education instead. It did not mean ending education or promoting only English. Nor was the purpose military recruitment. Thus option A best expresses the political and educational aim.

Foreign cloth symbolised the economic impact of colonial rule and competed with Indian textile production. Boycotting it encouraged people to use Indian-made goods, support hand-spinning and weaving, and express national unity through everyday consumption. The action was therefore both economic and political. It did not protect foreign trade, discourage Indian cloth or directly increase colonial tax collection.

Colonial courts were important institutions through which British authority was exercised. When lawyers stopped appearing in them, they withdrew professional cooperation and questioned the legitimacy of the colonial legal system. This was intended as a non-violent political protest, not as the violent creation of private courts or a rejection of law itself. Therefore option A is the only consistent interpretation.

The colonial government awarded titles and honours to cultivate loyalty among influential Indians. Returning these distinctions publicly rejected the prestige and moral authority attached to British rule. It also expressed national self-respect and demonstrated that cooperation would not be exchanged for official recognition. The act neither increased the value of titles nor affected army recruitment or peasant revenue, so option A is correct.

Gandhi planned a gradual programme because a mass struggle required preparation, organisation and strict adherence to non-violence. Stages allowed people to learn methods such as surrendering titles, boycotting institutions and using swadeshi goods before more intense action was considered. The purpose was not to exclude the public or restrict the movement to soldiers. Compulsory violence directly contradicted his method.

At the Nagpur session, Congress adopted organisational changes designed to create a wider mass base, including work through provincial units and local-level committees. These reforms made participation easier for ordinary people in towns and villages and improved coordination of the Non-Cooperation Movement. Congress did not become an elite body, abolish all provincial organisation or reject non-cooperation. Hence option A is correct.

The early urban phase of Non-Cooperation attracted students, teachers, lawyers, professionals, traders and other middle-class groups. Their participation was visible in leaving or boycotting government educational institutions, giving up legal practice in colonial courts and rejecting foreign cloth. Forest rebellions, revenue refusal and army-camp revolts belonged to other social groups or contexts, so option A is the most complete answer.

The governing concept is swadeshi and economic non-cooperation. Foreign cloth represented the dominance of British manufactured goods over Indian markets and handicrafts. Burning it publicly rejected that economic control and encouraged people to use Indian-made cloth. Therefore option A is correct. Option B is opposite to the protest, option C misunderstands the purpose because Indian production was encouraged, and option D concerns taxation rather than cloth boycott.

The governing principle of Gandhi’s mass politics was non-violence. At Chauri Chaura in February 1922, protesters attacked and killed policemen, showing that the campaign could turn violent. Gandhi therefore suspended the movement rather than allow a struggle conducted against his essential discipline. Option A is correct. The British had not granted swaraj, the Khilafat issue was not the reason, and Congress had not become completely detached from the people.

The major historical achievement of Non-Cooperation was the widening of political participation. Students, teachers, lawyers, merchants, peasants, workers, and women joined through boycotts, demonstrations, national institutions, or local action. It did not immediately end colonial rule, abolish the tax system, or transfer the army to Indian control. Hence option A is correct because the movement transformed nationalism from a limited political activity into a broad mass struggle.

The Khilafat issue mobilised many Muslims who were concerned about the position of the Ottoman Caliph after the First World War. Non-Cooperation provided a wider anti-colonial programme, including boycotts and withdrawal from institutions. Linking them created an opportunity for Hindu-Muslim cooperation and broader mass mobilisation. Option A is correct; the other choices describe restriction or abandonment, whereas the purpose was expansion of the struggle.

The First World War intensified economic hardship through rising prices, taxes, shortages, and forced recruitment in many areas. Post-war repression, including the Rowlatt Act, further deepened political anger. Gandhi used this situation to connect everyday suffering with organised satyagraha and wider anti-colonial politics. Option A is correct. The war did not aim to strengthen unopposed British rule, dissolve Congress, or establish permanent military government.

The Rowlatt Act extended extraordinary powers of detention and trial without normal safeguards, provoking widespread protest. In the tense atmosphere that followed, colonial authorities in Amritsar used extreme force against an unarmed gathering at Jallianwala Bagh on 13 April 1919. Thus option A correctly expresses the relationship: repression by law was followed by violent repression in practice. The other options concern unrelated or false outcomes.