Correct Answer:

C (1 and 3)

Explanation of Statements/Options:

Statement 1 is correct:  
 • The Ilbert Bill of 1883 proposed to grant limited criminal jurisdiction to native Indian officials.
 • This was intended to allow Indian judges to preside over cases involving British subjects in India.
 • The proposal aimed to address racial discrimination in the judicial system by allowing Indian judges to try Europeans.
 • The bill was part of a broader movement towards legal reform and equality in colonial India.

Statement 2 is incorrect:  
 • The Ilbert Bill did not propose to grant complete civil and criminal jurisdiction to native officials.
 • It specifically focused on criminal jurisdiction and did not encompass civil jurisdiction.
 • The bill was limited in scope and did not aim to overhaul the entire judicial system.
 • The proposal was more about extending existing powers rather than granting complete jurisdiction.

Statement 3 is correct:  
 • The proposed Ilbert Bill generated significant opposition from the European community in India.
 • European subjects feared that Indian judges would be biased against them and were concerned about the loss of their privileged legal status.
 • The opposition was strong and vocal, leading to widespread protests and debates.
 • The controversy highlighted the racial tensions and resistance to equality within the colonial administration.

Statement 4 is incorrect:  
 • Despite the initial proposal, the Ilbert Bill was not passed without modifications.
 • Due to the strong opposition, the bill was amended to include provisions for a jury with a majority of European members in cases involving British subjects.
 • The modifications diluted the original intent of the bill, reflecting the influence of European settlers in India.
 • The final version of the bill was a compromise that did not fully achieve the intended reforms.