Explanation: The Greater Bengal movement was a significant political movement in the early 20th century that sought to unite the Bengali-speaking regions of India into a single province. This movement was a response to the partition of Bengal in 1905, which had divided the region into two provinces, East Bengal and West Bengal, based on religious lines. The movement aimed to reverse this partition and create a unified Bengal province that would encompass all Bengali-speaking areas.
Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and Sarat Chandra Bose were two prominent political figures who supported the Greater Bengal movement. Suhrawardy, a key political leader in Bengal, was a strong advocate for the unification of Bengali-speaking regions. He believed that a united Bengal would be more politically and economically powerful within the Indian political landscape. Suhrawardy's support for the movement was part of his broader political agenda to strengthen the position of Bengal and to promote the interests of Bengali-speaking people.
Sarat Chandra Bose, the brother of Subhas Chandra Bose, was another significant supporter of the Greater Bengal movement. He was a prominent leader in the Indian National Congress and played a crucial role in advocating for the unification of Bengal. Sarat Chandra Bose's support for the movement was driven by his vision of a united and strong Bengal within the context of the Indian independence struggle. He believed that a unified Bengal would be better equipped to fight for independence and to protect the interests of Bengali-speaking people.
Ayub Khan, on the other hand, was not associated with the Greater Bengal movement. He was a Pakistani military general and the first President of Pakistan. His political activities were primarily centered in Pakistan, and he was not involved in the political movements in India, including the Greater Bengal movement.
In conclusion, the correct answer is (D) Only (A) & (B), as Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and Sarat Chandra Bose were indeed supporters of the Greater Bengal movement, while Ayub Khan was not. This understanding of the movement and its supporters is crucial for comprehending the political dynamics and regional aspirations in the context of the Indian independence struggle.