Colonial rule and the nationalist challenge in India, 1919-47

Paper 1(b) asks for two EFFECTS (outcomes), not a retelling. Describing the Salt March (Gandhi walked to Dandi and made salt) scores little; the effect is what it LED TO: mass civil disobedience, huge publicity, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact (1931). Amritsar's effect was not 'people died' but that it destroyed faith in British justice and boosted Congress.

On the 16-mark judgement, even candidates who know a great deal stall below Level 4 by asserting Gandhi (or the war, or the Muslim League) was 'the most important' factor without explaining criteria. Did it change the timing, the likelihood, or the shape (partition) of independence? Name and apply such a criterion, then decide how far you agree.

DS4 is bounded by 1919-47, so answers must not drift into pre-1919 background (the 1857 rebellion, Congress founded 1885) or the post-1947 aftermath (Gandhi's assassination in 1948, the Kashmir wars). Material from the wrong period earns nothing. Keep every example inside the window, from Amritsar through to partition in August 1947.

On the 6-mark impression question (AO4), selecting or quoting words that fit an impression caps the answer at Level 2. To reach Level 3, analyse HOW the author builds the impression: the detail they select, the tone, the emphasis, and what they leave out. Inferring an impression and copying supporting phrases is not enough on its own.

Do not treat Gandhi's two great campaigns as one. Non-Cooperation (1920-22) meant WITHDRAWING cooperation: boycotting British goods, schools, courts and titles. Civil Disobedience, from the 1930 Salt March, meant ACTIVELY breaking unjust laws, such as making salt against the salt tax. Both were non-violent satyagraha, but one refuses to cooperate, the other breaks the law.

The demand for a separate Muslim state came from the Muslim League under Jinnah, NOT from Gandhi or Congress, who wanted a united India and opposed partition. The League set it out in the Lahore Resolution of 1940, having earlier sought only safeguards for Muslims within India. Partition came from the breakdown of talks (the failed 1946 Cabinet Mission).

Students overstate the Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford reforms): it did NOT grant independence or self-government. It brought 'dyarchy', where Indian ministers ran some provincial matters while Britain kept finance, police and justice, so real power stayed British. Do not confuse it with the later 1935 Act, which went further with provincial autonomy.