In a 1965 series of articles tracing the history of relativity, Keswani claimed that Poincar? and Lorentz should have the main credit for special relativity - claiming that Poincar? pointedly credited Lorentz multiple times, while Lorentz credited Poincar? and Einstein, refusing to take credit for himself. He also downplayed the theory of general relativity, saying "Einstein's general theory of relativity is only a theory of gravitation and of modifications in the laws of physics in gravitational fields". This would leave the special theory of relativity as the unique theory of relativity. Keswani cited also Vladimir Fock for this same opinion.
This series of articles prompted responses, among others from Herbert Dingle and Karl Popper.
Dingle said, among other things, ".. the 'principle of relativity' had various meanings, and the theories associated with it were quite distinct; they were not different forms of the same theory. Each of the three protagonists ... was very well aware of the others ... but each preferred his own views."
Karl Popper says "Though Einstein appears to have known Poincar?'s Science and Hypothesis prior to 1905, there is no theory like Einstein's in this great book."
Keswani did not accept the criticism, and replied in two letters also published in the same journal - in his reply to Dingle, he argues that the three relativity theories were at heart the same: "... they meant much that was common. And that much mattered the most."
Dingle commented the year after on the history of crediting: "Until the first World War, Lorentz's and Einstein's theories were regarded as different forms of the same idea, but Lorentz, having priority and being a more established figure speaking a more familiar language, was credited with it." (Dingle 1967, Nature 216 p.119-122). - Wikipedia