Gandhian Era (1919-1939) MCQs

Retention and extension of separate electorates is the institutional starting point, but it is not the only relevant support. Their divisive political effect and the incentive for groups to seek separate representation also explain community-based mobilisation.

These identify a political purpose and response, but omit the actual electoral mechanism in statement 1. Separate electorates made community identity a formal basis for choosing representatives.

The institutional arrangement and its divisive purpose both matter, yet statement 3 adds the mobilisation around representational benefits. Excluding that response makes the explanation incomplete under the provisional selection.

A stronger rupee can make imports cheaper in rupee terms, so importers might benefit. But a possible side effect is different from the colonial fiscal and external-payment purpose asked here; the keyed answer concerns remittances and credit.

An appreciated rupee generally makes Indian goods dearer to a foreign buyer, or reduces the rupees received for a given sterling export receipt. It therefore does not provide a straightforward policy for encouraging cotton exports.

The commission discussed currency stability and a gold standard, but merely preventing a fall against gold does not capture the stated imperial financial purpose. The question asks why this exchange-rate choice was adopted, rather than what a fixed parity mechanically does.

This includes statement 3, whose categorical claim of Communist non-support is too broad. Communists were among the left currents sympathetic to Bose at the Tripuri crisis; later differences should not be projected uniformly backward.

Including statement 3 treats Communist attitudes as uniformly hostile, while omitting statement 2 loses the crucial division within the Left. Sympathy for Bose and willingness to back an organisational rupture were not identical positions.

This leaves out the conflict with Gandhi, a central part of the 1939 leadership crisis. Bose’s electoral victory did not remove the disagreement over the Working Committee and the Congress’s political direction.

More than one item was part of the programme. Boycott of law courts and foreign cloth, strict non-violence, and establishment of panchayats were all included.

More than two items were part of the programme. Items 1, 2 and 4 were all integral to the Non-Cooperation Movement.

Item 3 is incorrect. The programme called for the surrender of titles and honours, not their retention.

C. R. Das was a prominent lawyer-politician but did not defend the Chauri Chaura accused. He was engaged in the Swaraj Party's formation during this period.

Dr. Kitchlew was associated with the Jallianwala Bagh context in Punjab, and Khwaja Hasan Nizami was a writer and Sufi scholar, not the defenders in this case.

M. A. Jinnah was not involved in the legal defence of the Chauri Chaura accused. He had distanced himself from the Non-Cooperation Movement.

The Champaran Satyagraha of 1917 was Gandhi's first major Indian campaign, but this statement was made much later during the Salt Satyagraha of 1930.

Gandhi attended the Second Round Table Conference in 1931 as a negotiator, not in a context of open defiance where such a statement would be made.

The Quit India Movement was launched in 1942. This statement belongs to the earlier Salt Satyagraha period of 1930.

The Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 1931 dealt with the terms for ending the Civil Disobedience Movement, not with the upliftment of Harijans as a central political programme.

The Quit India Movement in 1942 came much later. Gandhi's dedicated Harijan programme had already been launched in the 1930s after the Poona Pact.

The Government of India Act, 1935 was a constitutional reform. Gandhi's decision to centrally include Harijan upliftment predated this Act and was triggered by the Poona Pact.

Statement 1 is correct but statement 2 is also correct. The staged approach was a key design feature of the Non-Cooperation programme.

Statement 2 is correct but statement 1 is also correct. At the Nagpur session of 1920, the Congress formally adopted Swaraj by peaceful means as its goal.

Both statements are historically accurate descriptions of the Non-Cooperation Movement's design and objectives.

Statement 1 is correct, but statement 2 is wrong. Gandhi did support the recruitment resolution at the War Conference, hoping it would secure concessions from the British.

Statement 3 is correct but statement 2 is wrong. Gandhi supported the resolution on recruiting Indians at the War Conference.

Statement 2 is incorrect. Gandhi supported the resolution at the War Conference, making only statements 1 and 3 correct.

While lawyers like Rajendra Prasad assisted Gandhi at Champaran, the significance lies not in all-India participation but in connecting peasant struggles with the national movement.

The Champaran movement was primarily about indigo cultivators and their grievances, not specifically about Dalit and Tribal involvement in the national movement.

The Champaran Satyagraha addressed the exploitative tinkathia system; it did not cause a drastic decrease in plantation or commercial crop cultivation across the board.

The Federal Legislature did not hold residuary powers under the 1935 Act. This power was vested in the Governor-General.

Provincial Legislatures had powers over subjects in the Provincial List, but residuary powers were not assigned to them.

Provincial Governors exercised executive authority in their provinces but did not hold residuary legislative powers.

Defining the jurisdiction of Central and Provincial Governments was a matter dealt with by constitutional reform acts, not by the Butler Committee.

The powers of the Secretary of State were defined by parliamentary legislation, not by the Butler Committee.

Press censorship was dealt with through press laws, not through the Butler Committee's mandate.