The First World War, Khilafat, and Non-Cooperation

The governing concept is the colonial financing of the First World War. Britain increased defence expenditure and recovered much of the cost from India through war loans, higher taxes and other financial demands. These measures placed an additional burden on Indian people and contributed to resentment against colonial rule. Option A is correct; the other options describe policies that were not direct consequences of wartime defence spending.

The governing concept is wartime colonial taxation. The First World War sharply increased government expenditure, so the colonial administration introduced income tax and raised customs duties to collect additional revenue. These measures helped finance the war but transferred its cost to people in India. Option A is correct. The other choices are incorrect because taxation did not grant industrial freedom, provide peasant relief or announce self-rule.

The governing concept is coercive recruitment under colonial rule. During the First World War, officials and local authorities pressured villagers to supply men for the British army. This interfered with family life, labour and personal choice, making rural communities resent both the recruitment process and the colonial government behind it. Option A is correct; free education, tax exemption and self-government would not explain this resentment.

The governing concept is the connection between material hardship and political discontent. Wartime inflation and taxation had already reduced people’s economic security. Crop failure then threatened food and income, while epidemics caused illness, deaths and social disruption. Together these crises deepened public suffering and encouraged criticism of colonial rule. Option A is correct; the other options contradict the actual effects of these disasters.

The governing concept is Gandhi’s idea of non-cooperation as non-violent withdrawal of support. Colonial administration functioned through the participation of Indian officials, workers, consumers, students and institutions. Gandhi argued that if people refused to assist unjust rule, its authority and ability to function would weaken. Option A is correct. The method did not automatically Indianise the army, abolish every tax or stop a war immediately.

The governing concept is institutional boycott as a form of non-cooperation. Government schools and courts were important parts of the colonial administrative system, so withdrawing from them challenged the claim that British institutions deserved public support. Nationalists encouraged alternative institutions and practices instead. Option A is correct. Increasing foreign trade, strengthening the army and raising peasant rent were not the purpose of this boycott.

The governing concept is coalition-building through a shared anti-colonial movement. The Khilafat issue mobilised many Indian Muslims, while Non-Cooperation expressed the broader demand for swaraj. Gandhi linked them to encourage Hindu-Muslim unity and bring more people into a common mass struggle against colonial rule. Option A is correct. The other choices either narrow the purpose to commerce or contradict the movement’s goal of popular mobilisation.

The governing concept is the post-war Khilafat question. The Ottoman Empire, whose ruler was regarded by many Muslims as the Caliph, was defeated in the First World War. Indian Muslims feared that the peace settlement would weaken or remove the Caliph’s authority and demanded protection for his position. Option A is correct. The Russian reforms, German unification and French industrial expansion were unrelated to the movement’s immediate international context.

The governing concept is political unity during the national movement. Gandhi believed that cooperation with Khilafat leaders could bring many Muslims into a common anti-colonial struggle. By linking the Khilafat issue with the demand for swaraj, he hoped to build Hindu-Muslim unity and broaden mass participation. Therefore, option A is correct; the other options either support British rule or describe unrelated and contradictory aims.

The governing concept is the expansion of satyagraha from local experiments to national mass politics. Gandhi had earlier led important struggles at places such as Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad, but the Rowlatt protest connected his method with an all-India issue. It therefore marked a major national beginning of satyagraha. Option A is correct; the movement did not end British rule, create a constitution, or settle the Khilafat question.

The governing concept is the use of coercion to enforce colonial authority. General Dyer ordered troops to fire on the unarmed crowd and later defended the action as a means of producing a moral effect and intimidating people. In the context of the movement, this meant creating fear and demonstrating the power of the colonial state. Option A is correct; the other choices are inconsistent with the violent action and its stated purpose.

The governing concept is the organisational approval and expansion of the Non-Cooperation Movement. The programme was first approved in principle at the Calcutta special session in September 1920 and was then formally adopted at the annual Congress session in Nagpur in December 1920. Since the question asks where the programme was adopted, option A is correct. The Surat, Lahore and Bombay sessions refer to different contexts or are not the correct answer here.

The governing concept is economic nationalism through boycott and swadeshi. Foreign cloth represented the strength of British manufactured imports, while Indian handloom workers and local producers faced hardship. Refusing foreign cloth reduced demand for imported goods and encouraged people to buy or produce Indian cloth, strengthening self-reliance. Thus option A is correct; the other choices would either support colonial industry or harm the intended economic purpose.

The governing concept is symbolic resistance through swadeshi and boycott. Foreign cloth represented dependence on British manufactured goods and the economic dominance of colonial rule. Burning it publicly expressed rejection of that dependence, encouraged national self-respect and urged people to use Indian-made cloth. Therefore option A is correct; the act did not honour foreign trade, support British rule or concern the collection of peasant rent.

The governing concept was non-cooperation with colonial institutions. Courts operated as important parts of British administration, so lawyers who stopped appearing there withdrew professional and public support from that system. This challenged colonial authority without using violence. Therefore, option A is correct. Options B, C and D do not describe the purpose of the lawyers’ boycott or its connection with the wider movement.

The governing idea was the boycott of colonial institutions. Government schools formed part of the educational structure maintained by the colonial state. When students left them, they were refusing to participate in and support that structure, while national schools were encouraged as alternatives. Thus option A is correct. The other choices concern support for British education, employment, or taxation and do not explain the action.

Khadi represented swadeshi, self-reliance and resistance to colonial economic control. Spinning and wearing Indian hand-made cloth supported local producers and accompanied the boycott of imported British textiles. It therefore expressed both economic and nationalist commitment, making option A correct. Options B, C and D refer respectively to acceptance of foreign goods, military service and landlord revenue, none of which explains khadi’s political meaning.

Colonial titles were honours conferred by the British government and helped present its rule as respectable and legitimate. Returning or giving up such titles was therefore a public rejection of colonial recognition and moral authority. It was a symbolic form of non-cooperation, so option A is correct. Options B, C and D suggest loyalty, employment concerns or educational acceptance, not rejection of imperial honour.

Legislative councils functioned within the constitutional structure of colonial rule. Boycotting their elections meant refusing to participate in institutions that offered limited representation while leaving British authority intact. This withdrawal of cooperation aimed to deny those institutions public legitimacy, so option A is correct. Options B, C and D concern strengthening laws, land auctions and foreign cloth, not the political purpose of the boycott.

Gandhi’s governing principle was disciplined, non-violent mass action. A staged programme began with forms such as surrendering titles, boycotting institutions and using swadeshi, allowing people to participate gradually and remain prepared for each further step. Therefore option A is correct. The movement was meant to involve people in politics, while B, C and D contradict its aims.

Refusing to pay taxes directly challenged the government’s revenue and administrative authority, making it more confrontational than boycotting goods or institutions. Gandhi therefore placed this step later, after participants had developed discipline and commitment to non-violence. Option A is correct. Options B and C reverse the political meaning, while D gives no valid reason for its place in the programme.

The Rowlatt Act permitted severe restrictions on civil liberties and detention without ordinary legal safeguards. The massacre at Jallianwala Bagh then exposed the violent nature of colonial repression. Together, these events deepened public anger, weakened faith in British justice and prepared people to support non-cooperation. Thus option A is correct; B, C and D contradict the historical consequences.

The Khilafat issue mobilised many Muslims, while Non-Cooperation connected that mobilisation with the broader demand for swaraj. Their combination brought different communities and social groups into a common anti-colonial campaign and widened the movement’s mass base. Therefore option A is correct. Options B, C and D describe exclusion, support for colonialism or imported goods, all contrary to the movement’s purpose.

Gandhi’s moral argument was that an unjust government survives only when people obey and cooperate with it. Citizens could therefore refuse cooperation as a non-violent form of resistance, while accepting responsibility for disciplined conduct. This principle connected non-cooperation with satyagraha, making option A correct. B, C and D support injustice, violence or colonial honours and contradict Gandhi’s position.

The governing concept was Gandhian non-violent mass politics. Non-violence gave the movement moral legitimacy and helped ordinary people participate without turning the struggle into uncontrolled violence. It also required discipline, restraint, and peaceful protest from a large crowd. Therefore option A is correct; secrecy, helping the police, and weakening peasants were neither aims nor effects of this principle.