In 2024, the New Left Review published a review of two recent books on Savarkar titled-
Blood and Bombast
The last two decades have seen a marked uptick in projects of Indian—or more broadly, South Asian—intellectual history, often using a biographical lens.
The problem here is that intellectuals who were important in the late nineteenth century- e.g. Herbert Spencer - were later neglected. Nobody can be bothered to pour over their turgid tomes or to discover how and why they gained influence in far away places- e.g. Maharashtra where 'Harbhat Pendse' was revered.
True, some people might say 'Shyamji Krishna Varma was the bridge' . He later sponsored V.D Savarkar & other Revolutionaries. But this elides the real question, why did a Sanskrit orator, close to the Arya Samajis, who was taken up by Monier Williams, become a Spencerian of a left wing type? What other influences were at work?
While stimulating in some ways, these writings have also been surprisingly narrow in their ambitions.
Because broader ambition would involve reading a lot of hefty tomes & then going through newspaper & magazine archives & looking up different volumes of collected letters.
A significant landmark was Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire (2011), by the late Cambridge historian C. A. Bayly.
It doesn't go far enough. The fact is Liberal ideas were always a two way street. How did Indians affect British Liberalism? It isn't enough to mention Chait Singh & Nandakumar who found ways to communicate their grievances to Burke & Sheridan. Nor is it enough to dwell on Roy & Tagore & Bentinck & Macaulay. You have to look deeper. The fact is, wealthy and powerful Indians influenced Tory policies & covertly provided ammunition against Liberals. Bentinck was recalled from Madras after the Vellore mutiny. He was accused of trying to get sepoys to give up their traditional caste-marks etc so as to make it easier to convert them to Christianity. The Tory position was that India had not been conquered. It was being administered according to its own ancient traditions. Interestingly, the East India Company, though Benthamite in spirit, often found it convenient to uphold a notion of an ancient unchanging civilization where the Brits performed the function of a night watchman.
I may add that Secularist movement in Britain drew inspiration for British India. If a man was free to follow any religion, or none, in India, why not in the UK?
Published in Cambridge University Press’s celebrated ‘Ideas in Context’ series, the book attracted some attention outside the field of Indian history.
Because it was well-written & Bayly had read widely about the period.
But it could be argued that Bayly was not so much an innovator as the consolidator of a trend which had been emerging since the 1980s and 1990s, with the appearance of a number of works on the intellectual history of nationalism in South Asia by political theorists such as Partha Chatterjee and Sudipta Kaviraj, both of whom were associated with the group called Subaltern Studies.
Nonsense! Bayly was perfectly sane. The Subaltern school was utterly paranoid. Elites were bamboozling the masses. Did you know that Gandhi & Nehru didn't really try to gain more freedom for Indian people? They actually turned the country into a vast slave-plantation overseen by invisible White Viceroys.
In contrast, studies of intellectual themes unrelated to nationalism in its various incarnations have been few and far between, and largely limited to the period before 1750.
It would be fair to say that writing intellectual history is difficult enough when it comes to a particular country. It becomes much more complex if you also have to look at exchanges with distant civilizations.
In the case of India you have to look at the religious angle- e.g. connection between Utilitarianism & Brahmoism. The case of Theosophic influence is particularly complex. Headed first by a Russian woman and an American Colonel, it provoked different reactions if different people. A.O Hume, founder of the INC, was a Theosophist at one time. Thanks to Annie Beasant- a feminist & suffragette- it moved to the Left. But, in Bengal, you also had Vivekananda & Sister Nivedita- who was more radical than Beasant. How do they all fit into the picture?
It apparently remains difficult to interest the larger reading public in the writings of a major fifteenth-century Telugu poet like Srinatha,
It is easy enough if they have watched the NTR biopic of the poet.
or the abhanga poems and songs of Bahina Bai, the woman mystic from seventeenth-century Maharashtra.
Make a TV serial of her life. The Music CD which accompanies it will sell very well.
In India, as in many parts of the decolonized world, nationalism remains the regular refuge of historians, even if (as an old song goes) ‘every form of refuge has its price’.
This is also true of countries which were never colonised. Nations like to feel good about themselves. Nationalism is considered a virtue.
The two books under consideration here review the career and writings of a particularly sulphurous figure in the history of Indian nationalism, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883–1966),
A hero of the Independence movement honoured by Indira Gandhi.
whose life intersected with those of many other figures in the nationalist pantheon.
like Bhagat Singh.
Hindutva and Violence by Vinayak Chaturvedi,
who was named after Savarkar. His paediatrician had procured the gun used to kill Gandhi.
a disciple of Bayly, and Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva by Janaki Bakhle, a former student of Chatterjee, bring contrasting approaches to the subject.
The former is more philosophical. But, the question as to why a Left Spencerian would move in some arcane ontological direction is left unanswered. My own impression is that the Bolshevik revolution & the success of Spengler's books gave substance to a notion, found here and there in Spencer & other writers, that there might be something biological or organic such that different races, or civilizations, would have a different relationship to 'Being'. There were precursors to this notion, but prior to the Great War, it appeared that there would be 'convergence' to some sort of Whig model of governance.
Though he has long been the object of a cult-like veneration, Savarkar has become far more prominent since the rise to power of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (bjp),
which originates in a party which broke with Savarkar's Hindu Mahasabha. It looks to Bengal- Vivekananda, Netaji Bose, etc.- though, no doubt, the roots of the RSS are in Maharashtra. But it always wanted to get out from under Savarkar's shadow.
which sees him as one of its spiritual ancestors. This increased prominence, along with the outbreak of communal violence in Gujarat in 2002,
Some Muslims massacred Hindu pilgrims. Hindus retaliated. Was the whole thing orchestrated by the Pakistani ISI? Probably. The Centre took no chances and sent in the Army. Maybe the Pakis were planning an attack in the Rann of Kutch and wanted Gujarat's roads and railways to get clogged up with displaced people.
seem in part to have led Vinayak Chaturvedi to his subject, as well as a strange autobiographical coincidence: Chaturvedi was named after Savarkar, one of whose disciples happened to be his doctor as an infant.
Doctors don't give names to babies. It is obvious that Chaturvedi's parents either liked Savarkar or were worshippers of Ganapati. Most likely both things were true.
On the anniversary of Savarkar’s death in February 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi wrote on social media: ‘India will forever remember his valiant spirit and unwavering dedication to our nation’s freedom and integrity. His contributions inspire us to strive for the development and prosperity of our country’.
Indira Gandhi, some 40 years earlier, wrote “Veer Savarkar’s daring defiance of the British Government has 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."
The man himself was not quite as anodyne as these phrases might have one believe, however. His career was one of twists and turns, which make him far more than just the father of ‘Hindutva’, a term he popularized and reinterpreted but did not invent.
Savarkar's elder brother, Ganesh, was a revolutionary inspired by the great rebel leader Vasudev Balwant Phadke who went on hunger strike, in a British jail in Aden, and died in the year Vinayak was born. Lokmanya Tilak took notice of the brothers and, because the younger was academically gifted, got him a scholarship to study law in England where he published a book on Mazzini which was dedicated to Tlak. Both brothers continued their revolutionary activities & Ganesh, in 1909, was transported to the Andamans for waging war on the King Emperor. He later became one of the founding members of the RSS.
Tilak is regarded in European Right Wing circles as an exponent of esoteric philosophy. The Tilakite faction of Congress got the Savarkar brothers released in 1937 by supporting the Premiership of Dhanishaw Cooper till Congress agreed to form a Government.
An intellectual history should look at the link between Tilak's esoteric ideas & those current in other countries at the time.
Savarkar was born in 1883 in the Nashik region of Maharashtra, formerly Bombay Presidency, into a modest family of Chitpavan Brahmins. This was a regional sub-caste of warrior-administrators that had been closely associated with the consolidation of Maratha power in the eighteenth century: they had for an extended period held the key ministerial post of Peshwa and acted, not as the actual sovereigns, but as the shoguns based in Pune.
The great rebel Phadke, was Chitpavan as were Gokhale & Tilak.
After several conflicts with the East India Company, the Peshwas and their allies were diplomatically outmanoeuvred and dealt a severe defeat in the Third Anglo-Maratha War of 1817–19, permitting the durable consolidation of British rule in western India. Though some of the Maratha sardars accepted this outcome, others seized the occasion of the Great Rebellion of 1857–58 to mount one further stand against the Company. After the bloody suppression of this revolt, the descendants of the erstwhile elites associated with the Marathas may have nursed their grievances, but they came to terms with colonial dominance.
Unless, like Phadke, they rebelled.
This included acculturation into European mores and participation in the institutions of Western-style higher education that were set up after 1860. Among these was the well-known Fergusson College in Pune, founded in 1885, where Savarkar enrolled as a student in 1902.
As Chaturvedi notes, Savarkar’s early years are difficult to reconstruct with clarity; little direct evidence survives from that time and his own later writings must be treated as somewhat slanted and unreliable. It would seem that he was regarded as intelligent, possessing a remarkable memory and a gift for languages. By his later teens, he had a good level of Sanskrit
Sanskrit was a 'scoring subject'. Shyamji Krishna Varma mastered the language in school & became a Sanskrit orator awarded the title 'Pundit' by the Brahmins of Benares. Savarka, by birth, was a Brahmin but rejected casteism. His hero, Phadke, had allied with a great Ramoshi leader. Later he sought to recruit Muslim Rohillas and even Arabs. In his first phase, Vinayak believed Hindus & Muslims would unite to drive out the British. Later, he became concerned that some Muslim leaders were saying that Islam forbade the Indian Muslim from fighting against an Afghan invader.
and wrote a somewhat florid version of Victorian English, as well as Marathi and the lingua franca of Hindustani (it is unclear whether he learned Persian, as the Chitpavans of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries often did). This early education gave him a grounding in a traditional form of philology that he would later put to use. He also read a certain amount of popular history in English, such as the ‘Story of the Nations’ series which included volumes on Greece, Holland, Mexico and so on. It was during his years at Fergusson that Savarkar became obviously politicized,
His elder brother had already politicized him.
joining secret societies
his brother's secret society
and beginning to publish articles in Marathi that attracted the attention of prominent nationalists such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856–1920), also a Chitpavan Brahmin. Tilak and other patrons facilitated and financed Savarkar’s passage to London to study law at Gray’s Inn, where he arrived in early 1906. A clearer picture emerges of the man from his time in London, partly because he produced a flurry of writings. These included translations of the essays of Giuseppe Mazzini, a figure of fascination for Indian and many other Asian nationalists in these years, and an original work on the 1857–58 rebellion titled The Indian War of Independence of 1857 (1909) which remains one of his most widely read books, especially among Indian nationalists of various stripes. It announced Savarkar’s claim to be a historian, not one with an academic bent or an inclination to work with archives and documents, but rather a popularizer who deployed his rhetorical skills in charged emotional prose. Here was a history full of heroes and villains, but above all of ‘martyrs’ to the cause of the nation.
Some Indians in London at that time were moving in a Socialist direction. Suppose Savarkar had found refuge in France and then Germany (where the Kaiser was interested in arming Indian rebels), would his subsequent trajectory have been to the Left alongside Chatto, M.N Roy, etc? Probably.
The fact is, the Nehru dynasty upholds orthopraxy. Weddings and funerals are properly conducted in a Vedic manner. Savarkar, we suspect, had no time for such mummery. We readily embrace Vivekananda, but remain dubious of the younger Savarkar brother. However, he was a patriot. When he believed that Socialism was the best economic path for India, he endorsed it.
Chaturvedi presents Vinayak as a philosopher rather than a gifted writer adapting himself to changing political circumstances.
I suppose one could say he considered himself a 'karma-yogi' and that his devotion to India, was itself a high type of Hinduism, and thus excused him from the usual ceremonies or observances.
Savarkar, like other people with some knowledge of different Hindu traditions, was aware that 'tattva' could be translated as meaning different things. This was a matter of 'matam' (dogma) and, it may be, there is no difference in 'vigyan' (praxis or science).
A little before Vinayak came to London, the view had taken hold that the Brits, in their anxiety to establish the superior genius of Newton, had not given Leibniz his due. Some popular lecturers were spreading the view that the 'essence' of a thing is what is true of it in all possible world. Hindus had already espoused a similar view saying 'sanatan dharm' (eternal religion) remains the same though the exigencies of the times cause 'apadh dharma' to prevail. But in the best of possible worlds, we would have the pure Vedic religion because there would be no discrimination on the basis of wealth or occupation or gender.
Why does Vinayak not take this easy path? There are two reasons-
1) some creeds maintain that there are specific 'tattvas', constitutive of human experience, cognizable by the adept provided they follow the prescribed path. Savarkar didn't want to be attacked by theologians of different sects.
2) people might say 'under present circumstances, we need the Brits. Your theory is all very well but we don't live in a perfect world.' There was more than a little truth to this objection. Ireland, Egypt & Afghanistan got independence in 1922. Gandhi had unilaterally surrendered. Why had the Indian masses not fought on?
Turning back to what Chaturvedi has written, we have to ask why linking Hindutva with Being was 'innovative'? No one had said Hindus did not exist- i.e. were part of Being. A thing which does not exist and cannot exist (e.g. Meinongian objects) does not belong in Being. We would look in vain for a vast mountain made entirely of gold. The 'intension' has no 'extension'.
I suppose what Chaturvedi is saying is that whereas Hindus think their religion (or, at least, its essence) is founded in God ( as is all Being) Savarkar was disassociating Hinduism from God. This is plausible. It is also plausible to say that Savarkar didn't think Hinduism or Hindutva had an answer for everything (e.g. economics, engineering, etc.) but that if Hindus of all descriptions pulled together they could solve collective action problems in a manner that uplifted the nation.
If we ask why Gandhi was so much more successful than Tilak (who wrote a book on the Gita) the answer was that his daily life, and that of his Ashramites, was suffused with devotional religion. Moreover, he had an answer for every question under the Sun- or so it seemed.
You might say 'what is the point of spinning cotton? Weavers want mill yarn. The stuff we make snaps in the loom.' The answer would be- 'by spinning cotton you gain religious merit. You will be re-born on a paradisal planet.'
What is the big difference between the Hindutva of Advani & Vajpayee & that of Savarkar? The answer is that ideas about caste had changed. People could see that a Dalit, like Jagjivan Ram, was an excellent Cabinet Minister. A small and frail woman- like Indira Gandhi- could be a great war leader. Hindutva could now announce its anti-caste, anti-misogyny, credo. With Modi & Shah the emphasis has shifted to last mile delivery of universal services. Caste & Creed & Gender don't matter save in so far as there may be some affirmative action. Moreover, the whole world is aware of the threat posed by Islamic terror. Vote-bank politics which celebrates terrorists will back-fire.
Savarkar had lived in a London where young foreign students like himself were exposed to radical Socialist & Feminist ideas. He knew some of his old comrades were now in Moscow. The future of the Tilakite Congress had to be mapped carefully. Let the Left know you will back them for economic reasons while pretending to be on the side of religious orthodoxy.
Savarkar did not have the intense Spirituality of a Vivekananda or an Aurobindo. Nor did he have the humble devotional piety of a Gandhi. Moreover, he and his brother were, quite rightly, distrusted by the British. They would always have a soft spot for brave revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.
Chaturvedi does a good job of highlighting Vinayak's first introduction to History through the indigenous epics (which are thought to depict the end of one age and the beginning of a darker period even though God has taken a human form to defeat a particular threat to the Cosmic Order ) and the Marathi 'bakhars' stirring historical chronicles with some supernatural elements. He suggests that parallel to German philosophical history, there was a Maharashtrian historicism of a cultural and spiritual type.
Hindus have long charted that particular 'intellectual territory'. Gandhi's call to establish Ram Rajya- which he defined as 'sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority'- appeals to this long tradition.
These were old ideas. For Hindus, karma is like the theory of evolution. Simple creatures become more complex. As their power increases, scope for merit and demerit increase. The Theosophists had been very important in Indian politics. They had developed these themes very well. Prof Raghavan Iyer (father of Pico Iyer) used to write essays speculating on whose reincarnation President Eisenhower might have been.
It would have been rather strange if a Maharashtrian Hindu became obsessed with a question only of interest to scholars of Greek from Christian countries.
But Heidegger went further by suggesting that Being may best be understood as history – i.e. as time itself.
For philosophy, perhaps. But not for Physics.
In other words, what was required to conceptualise Being was a historical inquiry into history as Being.
Historical inquiry is just history. If it corresponds to what happened it is 'History as Being' as opposed to 'History as fantasy'.
For Savarkar, by contrast, Hindutva as “a history in full" did not transcend time; it was temporally bounded.
It may be that he was no believer in sanatan dharma (eternal religion). But he didn't say so.
Hindutva has a beginning, even if its moment of conception remains unknown. Savarkar says, "Forty centuries, if not more, had been at work to mould it as it is."
This is not the orthodox Hindu belief. It would be fair to say that Savarkar was cutting his philosophical coat according to such political cloth as was available to him & other Tilakites.
A history in full cannot, moreover, be a complete history of humankind; consequently, Hindutva's finitude is an aspect of its Being. In other words, for Savarkar Hindutva did not transcend time, but understanding its temporality was central to its conceptualisation.
This is all very well, but why stick with a religion where there is no God and no Heaven? Savarkar was a patriot. He was a karma yogi. He may also have been 'nastik'- an atheist. Hopefully, he wasn't or, if he was, found out he was wrong after ascending to Heaven.
I raise this parallel to suggest that the place of history was in the midst of radical reinterpretation for the study of Being.
It really wasn't. Nobody gave a fart about Bergson or Heidi. Einstein was all the rage.
In this context, it is worth considering a lecture delivered by Jacques Derrida on this theme in 1964, in which he made an important observation about Heidegger's texts (though it is unlikely that Derrida had even heard of Savarkar, let alone read his work).
Which is odd because Savarkar was reading Derrida. That's what caused his death.
Derrida states: "Never in the history of philosophy has there been a radical affirmation of an essential link between being and history."
Previous affirmations weren't radical enough for Derrida. Did they fuck Hannah Arendt? No. There you are then.
He further notes that Heidegger's arguments fundamentally contradicted all philosophical writings, because history and time were generally not included in interpretations of ontology.
They always are. Human beings tend to notice that there is a present and a past and a future. On this point, Heidi was quite sane.
He emphasises Heidegger's radical departure within the field: "Ontology has always been constituted through a gesture of wrenching itself away from historicity and temporality."
It would be fair to say that Heidegger differentiated himself from Husserl & the Neo-Kantians, Hegelians etc.
To be clear: though some of Heidegger's work was done in the same period as Savarkar's, there is no reason to believe that either Savarkar or Heidegger was aware of the other's writings in this period. Nor is there evidence to suggest that they even knew of the other's existence. Given Heidegger's sympathies and alliances with Nazi ideology and politics, however, this may have changed in 1940, when the German Foreign Office translated Savarkar's The Indian War of Independence of 1857 into German with the title Indien im Aufruhr.
Nobody read it.
It also appears that the Nazis were aware of some of Savarkar's activities, writings, and speeches, especially as his name appeared in intelligence reports of the German Foreign Office. After Savarkar had published a celebration of Nazism and Germany's imperial expansion into the Sudetenland, the Nazis reciprocated their admiration for Savarkar in a profile published in the official Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter.
But it was Netaji Bose, the Socialist, who showed up in Berlin & who recruited Indians for the Waffen SS.
I think Savarkar was influenced by both Herbert Spencer & the great Shyamji Krishna Varma who founded the 'Indian Sociologist'. We may say Savarkar rejected functionalist Sociology in favour of a historicist Sociology for political reasons. He wanted priority to be given to getting rid of the British whereas the Liberals & moderates thought their assistance should be taken to bring about needful socio-economic reforms.
Chaturvedi highlights Savarkar's proficiency in several languages.
Of course, Savarkar was not unique in this context of bilingualism - not to mention trilingualism or quadralingualism.
It would be safe to say that all Indian lawyers and High school graduates spoke at least two languages- viz. mother tongue & English plus reading comprehension of a Classical language.
Partha Chatterjee's important observation is most relevant here, namely that by the mid-nineteenth century the intellectual formation of bilingual elites marked an important conjuncture in colonial India as the intelligentsia viewed its own language as central to "cultural identity.'
English had displaced Persian and vernacular languages were replacing the previous lingua franca. The Brits encouraged the upgrading of mother tongues by means of 'Sanskritization' or 'Persianisation'. Punjab was a bit unusual in that Urdu rather than Punjabi was used.
He explains that the intelligentsia's literary work in the vernacular, especially dramas and novels, emerged in the "inner domain" - a sphere in which "the colonial intruder had to be kept out."
Nonsense! You showed your stuff to the District Collector and hoped to gain an 'inam'- i.e. a reward of some type.
This inner domain not only remained largely impervious to European literary and aesthetic influences,
it was transformed by it.
but it was also the space that resisted and rejected "European conventions."
European conventions were expensive. Also you would have to hire some half-caste to learn how to use a fork and knife.
For Chatterjee, the inner domain was the space in which the nation was imagined into existence as sovereign, independent of colonial power.
Chatterjee hadn't noticed that Nepal was independent. Why? Nepalis kick ass on the battlefield. It was fucking obvious that 'independence of colonial power' meant kicking ass militarily. But, Bengal would also need a navy. That's expensive.
In 2025, Arun Shourie published a book on Savarkar. It awakened little interest. Savarkar may well have been an atheist. If this helped to turn him against the caste system- well and good. God grants or withdraws the gift of faith for reasons known only to himself. All we can say is that Savarkar was for Hindu consolidation rather than some caste-based electoral formula in which Muslims are told that they will only be safe if the vote for this dynastic bunch of crooks or that dynastic bunch of crooks.
I end by giving my own brief account of Savarkar's intellectual history
1) Childhood shaped by stirring tales of Marathi history & glorification of Phadke & his determination to build a broad based coalition to fight the British.
2) Higher education when the spirit of 'Lal/Bal/Pal' (i.e. the 'garam dal' extremists) pervaded the country. Mazzini had been popularized by Surrender-not Bannerjee and Pal was said to have come to Nationalism through him. At home, however, there was the reformist spirit of the anti-caste activists which might want to do a deal with the British- i.e. follow the path of Ranade, Phule, Gokhale, Gandhi, Jinnah etc. Perhaps the new Sociological science developing out of the works of Herbert Spencer could show a path forward. Shyamji Krishna Varma, in London, and Madam Cama in Paris were beacons of light for Tilakites. But Savarkar was a rebel, not an intellectual, first and foremost. Though in London, he was doing his best to help his elder brother realise his plans for the liberation of the country
3) Jail meant Savarkar was cut off from the leftward movement of other revolutionaries in Europe & America. Tilakites were out in the cold because the charismatic Mahatma could mobilize the religious piety of the masses. The sticking point was Khilafat. Essentially, Gandhi was saying that Islam was better than Hinduism. Hindus have a duty to fight for the Caliph. No Indian Muslim has a duty to fight an invader if that invader happens to be Muslim.
4) Universalism of any sort put the Hindu at a disadvantage unless they could overcome the temptation of pretending to ally with Muslims for purely Islamic demands. Vivekananda and Tagore & Aurobindo could be just as attractive to foreigners as to Hindus. Why fight for anything associated with them?
5) Historicist Sociology was no way forward save by backward causation. In other words, Hindutva (unified, ecumenical, Hinduism) would have to fabricate its own past. But why bother? Why not look to the future instead? This is where Savarkar fell down. Rajaji could critique a corrupt 'Licence Permit Raj' seeking to pass itself off as 'Secular Socialism'. But Savarkar knew no economics. He was far removed from the levers of power or the centres of industry and finance.
Some say he wrote well. If so, good for him. But, as a leading Hindutva ideologue myself, I must tell you it was Enid Blyton who was the profoundest influence on my generation. I asked my Dad to get me a dog like Timmy in the Famous Five. He sang 'daddy wouldn't buy me a bow-wow'. I cried and cried. Mummy said, 'don't be so harsh. He is only 34 years old. Tell him that after he marries and moves out of the house he can buy any type of animal he likes.' My father replied 'the way you mollycoddled him, no wonder he turned into a big fat Queen. Who will marry that good-for-nothing'.
I was meant to hear these harsh words. But I did. I immediately set forth to Engyland so as to marry Prince Charles. Sadly, he prefers blondes. But, as soon as Camilla dies- which could happen if the Donald accidentally sits on her- I am sure the King will, out of respect to sanatan dharma, ensure that words uttered in a moment of anger by my esteemed father finally come true in a glorious manner such that universal welfare is enhanced.
Modiji may kindly drop a hint to the British Monarch next time he bumps into him.
