copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2020-05-28): Politically inclined from the earliest of ages, Savarkar involved himself in numerous organisations including the Free India Society, remaining in close contact with his homeland even while he pursued his studies in the UK. He soon developed a reputation of great notoriety among British authorities for his political acts, and was eventually arrested in 1910, for his connections with the revolutionary organisation, India House. [...] In his petition requesting his release, Savarkar pledges to co-operate fully with the British authorities and refrain from any political acts – something that his critics have often held up as testament to his perceived faltering convictions to the nation's freedom struggle. However, it is worth noting that Savarkar, when questioned of his motive, did, in fact, clarify that he would trade his own freedom for the release of his fellow political prisoners. Unlike numerous political prisoners who were driven to insanity or committed suicide, Savarkar showed remarkable resilience and was ultimately rewarded for it in January 1924 when he was finally released from prison. [...] Savarkar's time spent in prison not only provides valuable insight into the spirit of his character, but also reveals the degree of fear he instilled among British authorities, as a function of his vision of a liberated India. While his life and mission will undoubtedly continue to divide people across political lines for years to come, there is little doubt that the strength of his conviction was not made to weather the sternest of tests.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2024-10-03): The harsh treatment by the British drove Savarkar to join the freedom struggle and help fulfil the incomplete mission of the martyrs to make India free of British rule. [...] Savarkar was conscious of the suffering of the people and was emotionally disturbed by the suffering of the people. The harsh treatment and excesses by the British drove him to join the freedom struggle and help fulfil the incomplete mission of the martyrs to make India free of British rule. [...] In 1906, Savarkar left for London to study law. He continued his vision there also and started the Free India Society. During this period he wrote The Indian War of Independence, 1857 (1909) in which he wrote that the Indian Mutiny of 1857 was the first expression of Indian mass rebellion against British colonial rule.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2022-11-20): But, Savarkar wanted to become a barrister and help the Indian society, to get wealthy and influential Indians in London to acquire positions by passing ICS, IMS Bar at Law examinations to help the cause of Independence. Savarkar proclaimed to the British that Indians wanted Independence and not reforms. [...] But running down Savarkar as a traitor became a tool to save their skin & prestige for many. An Anglo Indian paper wrote, "The rascal has at last met his fate."
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2022-11-17): "See this. This is the most important document for me. This is the document that comprises Savarkar’s letter to [the> British in which he has stated ‘I beg to remain, sir, your most obedient servant, VD Savarkar," the Congress leader alleged on Thursday at a press conference in Maharashtra’s Aloka, as he brandished a letter, which he claimed is written by Savarkar. [...] Savarkar, who was arrested for his alleged links to the assassination of AMT Jackson, a British district magistrate of Nashik, was lodged in the Cellular Jail, a colonial prison in the Andaman Islands, infamously called "kaala paani". His elder brother Ganesh was also in the same prison. The two spent 10 years in jail between 1911 and 1920 and during this time Savarkar reportedly wrote to the British at least seven times.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2024-10-07): 1 Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (‘Savarkar’) was an Indian law student accused of various political offences in India. After being located by British authorities in London, Savarkar was given a hearing and ordered extradited to India to stand trial (Extradition). On 1 July 1910, Savarkar was placed on board the Morea, a British merchant vessel, for the trip to India. 2 Having been notified by British officials that the Morea and Savarkar would be stopping in Marseilles, the French Minister for the Interior informed the local authorities on 4 July 1910 of Savarkar’s...
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2021-10-25): Was there a secret understanding between Savarkar and the British? [...] On 8 March 1980, Pandit Bakhle of the Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak in Bombay (now Mumbai) wrote to then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi regarding the upcoming centenary celebrations of Savarkar. In her reply dated 20 May 1980, Indira Gandhi wrote: "Veer Savarkar’s daring defiance of the British government had its own importance in the annals of our freedom movement. I wish success to the plans to celebrate the birth centenary of the remarkable son of India." She even made a private donation of Rs 11,000 to a memorial fund in his name. [...] As told to Firstpost by historian Vikram Sampath, who has just come up with a book on Savarkar, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2021-10-15): The pleas followed a royal proclamation giving amnesty to political prisoners in India. However, British officials - one of them believed that Savarkar was "one of the most dangerous men that India has produced" - rejected the appeals. [...] Critics have mocked Savarkar over the petitions, alleging he apologised to the British rulers to get out of prison. They also say that the leader concealed the fact that he wrote them. [...] When the leader's wife, Kasturba, died, Savarkar refused to contribute to a fund being created in her memory, saying that "Gandhi had never shed a tear for the martyred men and women hung and shot by the British in pursuit of their armed attempts to overthrow British rule," Dr Guha noted.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2008-01-01): Chitragupta, Life of Barrister Savarkar (Madras: B. G. Paul & Co., 1926) [...] Longuet, Jean, Mémoire Présenté à la Cour d'Arbitrage de La Haye au nom de M. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar par Me J. Longuet (Paris, 1911) [...] Vaidya, Prem, Savarkar: A Lifelong Crusader (New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd, 1996)
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2024-10-09): Quick Reference (France v. United Kingdom) ( 1911 ) 11 R.I.A.A. 243. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a leading Hindu political activist, was being transported on a British merchant vessel from England to India ...
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2024-10-07): Whether Britain was required to return Mr Savarkar to France as a result of his irregular apprehension in Marseilles after escaping from a ship on which he was held under British authority.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2023-06-14): A social media post praising Savarkar claims that despite appearing for the exam and completing his studies, the British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire. The post further states that in the British Raj, it was mandatory to take such an oath to get the degree of advocacy and permission to practice. Through this article let’s fact-check the claim made in the post. [...] Fact: Savarkar was denied admission to the bar at Gray’s Inn because of his involvement in political activities. Historical documents endorsed the same view. Biographies of Savarkar also mentioned it is his involvement in political activities cost him admission to the bar. Hence the claim made in the post is FALSE. [...] While it is true that Savarkar passed his examination for the bar at Gray’s Inn and was denied admission as claimed in the viral post, however, it is not because of his denial to take an oath to the British empire, but because of his involvement in political activities. According to the historical documents available on the India Culture portal, in July 1909, benchers at Gray’s Inn College postponed the admission of Savarkar to the bar, considering his active participation in seditious activities, back in India.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2024-09-19): Savarkar declared on August 15, 1943 in Nagpur: [...] In an interview with British journalist Beverley Nichols, he said in 1943: [...] In May 1947, he took an entirely different approach when he told Mountbatten, who was in charge of British India's transition to independence:
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2015-06-29): All this is naturally disliked by the British. [...] This was more than he could bear. [...] Akbar, 71, 72, 73, 74
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2019-01-01): While studying in London, Savarkar headed a band of Indian students to organize and protest Britain’s colonization. He infused the passion for fighting for freedom in an entire generation of young Indians, both in Britain and India. ‘Savarkar’s life was truly extraordinary. He was classified as a serious threat to the British Empire and had to escape from Britain in a manner that defies imagination. While being transported to India, he was caught while trying to escape, leading to a famous international case. After returning to India, Savarkar continued to work zealously for India’s freedom. ‘Savarkar was incarcerated at the Cellular Jail for over eleven years. I hardly knew about Savarkar till I visited Port Blair and the Cellular Jail a few years ago. I was shocked at the bleak environment and tools of torture Britain employed to break its inmates. The prisoners were yoked to oil mills to grind seeds into oil, tortured and continuously beaten, deprived of adequate food and medical care, human beings made to work like animals under the violent whip of the British master. [...] Harindra Srivastava. Five Stormy Years: Savarkar in London , pp. 186–87. 149. Chitragupta. Life of Barrister Savarkar , p. 126. 150. ‘Personal Correspondence of Secretary of State Morley’, July 1909, Private Manuscripts, IOR/MSS/EUR/D/573/21, British Library, London. 151. Richard Popplewell. ‘The Surveillance of Indian Revolutionaries in Great Britain and on the Continent, 1905–14’. Intelligence and
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2011-07-01): 41. Pōrvāḷ, 7 August 1948, 10. [...] This did not stop him from continuing with his proselytizing activities, using weekends as well as his vacation days to give public lectures on Shaivism and Tamil; to publish his researches on Canḳam poems; and to establish reform societies such as the Caiva Cittānta Makā Samājam (Society for Shaiva Siddhanta), founded in 1905, and the Camaraca Caṉmārkka Nilaiyam (Sacred Order of Love), founded in 1911 (Nambi Arooran 1976: 319-27). [...] 28. For a contrary sentiment expressed in his private diaries, see M. Tirunavukarasu and Venkatachalapathy 1988: 76-77.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2023-11-13): - Bharatiya Sakshya Bill: [...] - Varma, instead, chose to establish a printing press of his own. [...] - During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, he remained loyal to the British Raj and was noted for his actions in saving European lives.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2018-12-07): In the five years that Savarkar spent in London as a law student, he galvanised the revolutionary movement that sought total and complete freedom from British rule. From India to Europe, and even America, a network of bravehearts guided by him, made contacts with Irish, French, Italian, Russian and American leaders, revolutionaries and the press to bring British India to the forefront of global discourse. No doubt, the British government categorised him as one of the most dangerous seditionists. Under an unfair Fugitive Offenders Act (FOA) of 1881 that did not apply to him because he was a bonafide student in London and not a fugitive, Savarkar was deported to India and tried with no right to appeal or defence. He was slapped with two life imprisonments, totalling 50 years, to rot in the Cellular Jail of the Andamans along with his elder brother Ganesh Damodar Savarkar. The British documents speak of how petrified they were of his very presence and hence wanted him as far away from the Indian mainland as possible.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (1996-04-07): Many people feel that Savarkar was not called to the Bar because he refused to take a pledge of allegiance to the British Crown. The chain of events was as follows: [...] On 14 July 1909 the benchers gave their verdict: "None of the charges against Savarkar was proven. However, there is still suspicion about him. Therefore he will not be called to the bar as yet. He is a member of this society and will continue to enjoy the privileges of the membership." Savarkar eventually withdrew from Grays Inn in 1910. All this information is given in Savarkar’s letters from London (Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya, Vol.4 pp. 132/3/4)There was never any question of taking a pledge of allegiance to the British Crown. If there was, Savarkar would not have hesitated even for a moment to take such a pledge. Throughout his life, Savarkar had emphasized that Hindus have suffered terribly over the centuries by foolishly sticking to the pledges given to their enemies - Muslims and the British. Time has come for them to be realistic.
Claim: British authorities denied Savarkar the barrister degree and law practice, because Savarkar refused to take the oath of allegiance/loyalty to the British Empire (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-28)
Evidence (2022-12-02): In an interview with the British journalist Beverley Nichols, he said in 1943: [...] In May 1947, he took an entirely different approach when he told Mountbatten, who was in charge of British India's transition to independence: [...] Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, also known as the "Frontier Gandhi" or "Sarhadi Gandhi", was not convinced by the two-nation theory and wanted a single united India as a home for both Hindus and Muslims. He was from the North West Frontier Province of British India, now in present-day Pakistan . He believed that the partition would be harmful to the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. After partition, following a majority of the NWFP voters going for Pakistan in a controversial referendum,[41] Ghaffar Khan resigned himself to their choice and took an oath of allegiance to the new country on February 23, 1948, during a session of the Constituent Assembly, and his second son, Wali Khan, "played by the rules of the political system" as well.[42]
Claim: Hindus who wish to express their support for the Uniform Civil Code should give a missed call to ‘9090902024’ before 06 July 2023 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-06-30)
Evidence (2023-06-30): Update (08 July 2023): The Law Commission of India has also issued a disclaimer notice stating that certain phone numbers circulating on social media, which are erroneously linked to the Uniform Civil Code, are not associated with them. Individuals can express their views on the Uniform Civil Code by visiting the website of the Department of Legal Affairs or by sending an email to the Law Commission of India.
Claim: Hindus who wish to express their support for the Uniform Civil Code should give a missed call to ‘9090902024’ before 06 July 2023 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-06-30)
Evidence (2023-07-08): Update (08 July 2023): The Law Commission of India has also issued a disclaimer notice stating that certain phone numbers circulating on social media, which are erroneously linked to the Uniform Civil Code, are not associated with them. Individuals can express their views on the Uniform Civil Code by visiting the website of the Department of Legal Affairs or by sending an email to the Law Commission of India. In light of PM Modi’s recent remarks strongly advocating for the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and criticizing opposition parties for allegedly inciting minority communities against it, a post is circulating widely on social media platforms claiming that Hindus who wish to express their support for the UCC should give a missed call to ‘9090902024’ before 06 July 2023. Let’s verify the accuracy of this claim. [...] Fact: The Government of India has not launched any missed call initiative for expressing support or opposition to the Uniform Civil Code. Individuals can share their views on the UCC on website of Department of Legal Affairs or by sending e-mail to Law Commission of India. Moreover, the number ‘9090902024’ is linked to a BJP campaign for the 2024 Lok Sabha Polls, where users can give a missed call to show support for the nine years of the Modi Government. Hence the claim made in the post is FALSE.
Claim: Hindus who wish to express their support for the Uniform Civil Code should give a missed call to ‘9090902024’ before 06 July 2023 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-06-30)
Evidence (2023-07-14): India definitely requires a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) that is fair and unbiased. It should be a secular code that doesn’t favour any particular religious group. The code should be founded on the Directive Principles of State Policy outlined in the Constitution. The notion that it violates religious freedom lacks logic and reasoning. Implementing a common civil code will promote equality and justice for all genders across different communities. [...] Muslim organisations and political parties, especially the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), are opposing the UCC, saying that its implementation will destroy the cultural and religious diversity of the country. [...] But still, they can demand non-BJP State governments like in Kerala to implement the UCC. Their argument against the UCC as anti-Muslim is foolish. They fail to recognise that the UCC would apply to all communities, including Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. Rather than focusing on educating Muslim women about their rights and the importance of gender equality, they become trapped in political parties’ agendas.
Claim: Hindus who wish to express their support for the Uniform Civil Code should give a missed call to ‘9090902024’ before 06 July 2023 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-06-30)
Evidence (2023-06-15): The debate for a uniform civil code dates back to the colonial period in India. In 1835, the British government tried to reform local social and religious customs and stressed upon the need for uniformity in the codification of Indian law relating to crimes, evidence, and contracts, specifically recommending that personal laws of Hindus and Muslims be kept outside such codification. [...] Experts argue that the UCC will impose a 'Hinduised' code for all communities. For example, a UCC could include provisions for family disputes on property inheritance, which may be in line with Hindu customs and will legally force other communities to follow the same. [...] All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Chief Asaduddin Owaisi had said, "It (Uniform Civil Code) is not required in this country. As per Goa civil code, Hindu men have the right to second marriage if the wife fails to deliver a male child by the age of 30. The Law Commission has opined that a UCC is not required."
Claim: Hindus who wish to express their support for the Uniform Civil Code should give a missed call to ‘9090902024’ before 06 July 2023 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-06-30)
Evidence (2023-07-07): India, being a diverse nation, is home to many religions, each with its distinct personal laws governing marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance and succession. It would be accurate to say that the absence of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has only served to perpetuate inequalities and inconsistencies in our land of rich diversity. In fact, this has been a hindrance in the nation’s progress towards social harmony, economic and gender justice. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had last week called for the enactment of a UCC, pointing out the anomaly of having varying laws for different categories of citizens. [...] Finally, I would like to urge my fellow citizens, leaders of religious groups and political parties to rise above all differences and support implementation of the UCC. They should contribute to making it an instrument of social reform, a legislative framework fully aligned with principles of justice and equity underscored by the Constitution, a code that provides legal protection against discrimination, a progressive piece of legislation to guarantee equal human rights and give tangible shape to the vision of the country’s illustrious founding fathers. It will be a yet another step, a very significant one, towards building a new, inclusive, egalitarian India that we all want. [...] Published - July 07, 2023 12:16 am IST