According to the author, during the national struggle, nationalists maintained that European power had 'failed to colonize the inner, essential, identity of the East which lay in its distinctive, and superior, spiritual culture'. If, as mentioned in option D, the colonial period saw the hybridisation of Indian culture in all realms-- if there were no home/world dichotomy on which the author bases his argument-- then, that would seriously weaken the author's claims in the passage.

In the last paragraph, the author says that it would be a grave error to think that the ideological framework within which nationalism answered 'the women's question' did not mean a total rejection of the West. This implies the nationalists embraced some aspects of the West and rejected some aspects, selectively. If option A were true and Indian nationalists rejected the cause of English education for women, that would really not weaken the author's claims in any way.

The author argues that colonial modernity, in terms of science, technology, rational forms of economic organization, and modern methods of statecraft 'had given the European countries the strength to subjugate the non-European people'. It was this domination that the colonized people were trying to overcome. So, option B, if true, strengthens the author's claims in the passage.

Just like option B, option C, if true, strengthens the author's claim that in the material realm, the European powers were ahead and this in turn gave them the strength to subjugate non-European people.