Unity Assertion in National Movement Developments

The core assertion is that a nation's progress is intrinsically linked to the unity of its various social and political groups. It further stresses that political parties should remain conscious of this need for unity, particularly within the context of competitive electoral politics.

Analyzing Historical Developments

To understand which developments attest to this assertion, let's examine each statement:

Rowlatt Satyagraha and Hindu-Muslim Unity Attestation

Statement (a) mentions the efforts during the Rowlatt Satyagraha to ensure Hindu-Muslim unity in the struggle against British rule. This historical event demonstrates a clear understanding among participants that unity between different religious communities was crucial for the success of a national movement. By actively fostering solidarity, they reinforced the idea that cohesion among social groups strengthens collective action towards national goals, thereby supporting the assertion.

League's Separate Nation View and Unity Assertion

Statement (b) describes the viewpoint, emerging in the late 1930s, where the Muslim League began to perceive Muslims as a distinct "nation." This perspective signifies a growing divergence and fragmentation among social and political groups, rather than promoting the unity essential for overall national progress. While a significant historical development, it illustrates a challenge to the idea of unified national progress, rather than attesting to the assertion.

Congress Rejection of Joint Government and Unity Assertion

Statement (c) refers to the Congress party's refusal in 1937 to form a coalition government with the Muslim League in the United Provinces. This political event highlights a breakdown in cooperation between major political entities. Such instances of political disunity can hinder collective efforts and progress. The failure to maintain a united political front, as exemplified in this case, implicitly underscores the importance of unity for effective governance and national development, thus supporting the assertion's premise.

Conclusion: Statements Attesting the Unity Assertion

Based on the analysis:

• Statement (a) directly supports the assertion by showing the active promotion of social unity for a national cause.
• Statement (c) indirectly supports the assertion by illustrating a consequence of political disunity, highlighting the importance of maintaining cooperation for progress.
• Statement (b) represents a move towards separation, contrasting with the principle of unity central to the assertion.

Therefore, the developments mentioned in statements (a) and (c) serve as evidence attesting to the assertion that national progress is dependent on the unity of social and political groups, and that political actors should be mindful of this principle.