The First World War, Khilafat, and Non-Cooperation

The correct answer is A because the colonial government increased its financial demands on India during the First World War. It collected money through war loans and raised taxes to meet military and administrative expenses. These measures transferred a greater burden to Indian people. Options B, C and D do not describe wartime revenue measures imposed by the colonial government.

The correct answer is C. During wartime, the government needed additional revenue to pay for military operations and other war-related expenses. Increasing customs duties on goods was one way to collect more money. The measure was therefore connected with wartime finance, not with honouring trade, distributing land, or rewarding students, as suggested by the other options.

The correct answer is D. During the First World War, colonial officials pressed villagers to provide soldiers through forced recruitment. Such pressure interfered with family life and local choice, creating fear and resentment. Instead of increasing trust in British rule, the policy deepened dissatisfaction with colonial authority. The other options are unrelated to the social effect of recruitment.

The correct answer is A. Wartime demand, shortages and higher government expenditure contributed to a rise in prices. Poor families generally had limited and relatively fixed incomes, so the cost of food and other necessities consumed a larger share of their earnings. As a result, buying essential goods became difficult. The other options contradict the economic hardship caused by inflation.

The correct answer is B. Crop failures reduced food availability and income, while epidemics caused illness, deaths and additional hardship. These problems came on top of wartime inflation and taxation, so people experienced greater suffering and developed stronger discontent with colonial rule. Satisfaction, pride in foreign rule and enthusiasm for paying taxes do not follow from these distressing conditions.

The correct answer is C. The Rowlatt Act extended extraordinary powers to the colonial government, including the ability to arrest and detain people without a normal public trial. Indians viewed this as a serious denial of civil liberties and justice. It did not abolish taxes, distribute land or grant self-rule; those claims in options A, B and D are therefore incorrect.

The correct answer is A. On 6 April 1919, a hartal was observed as part of the protest against the Rowlatt Act. A hartal involved the voluntary closure of shops and suspension of normal business and work, expressing collective opposition through non-violent action. The protest did not raise taxes, promote foreign cloth or celebrate military recruitment, so options B, C and D are incorrect.

The correct answer is C, Amritsar. Jallianwala Bagh is a public garden in Amritsar, Punjab, where General Dyer ordered troops to fire on a large gathering on 13 April 1919. The massacre became a turning point in Indian opposition to colonial rule. Lahore, Delhi and Kanpur were important cities, but the described incident did not occur there.

The correct answer is A: 13 April 1919. The massacre occurred at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on the day of the Baisakhi gathering, shortly after the Rowlatt Satyagraha and protests. The date 6 April 1919 relates to the hartal against the Rowlatt Act, while the 1920 and 1921 choices refer to later periods and are incorrect.

The firing at Jallianwala Bagh took place on 13 April 1919, when Brigadier-General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer ordered British troops to fire on the gathered crowd. Therefore, General Dyer is correct. Gandhi, the Ali brothers and Patel were important national leaders, but none of them commanded the troops there.

On 13 April 1919, people gathered at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on the occasion of Baisakhi. The crowd included people who had come for the festival and local residents attending a meeting to protest the Rowlatt Act and the arrest of popular leaders. Therefore option A is correct. The gathering was not connected with Diwali worship, tax collection, or a military parade.

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.