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.

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.