The New Icon: Savarkar and the Facts

by Arun Shourie

Did Savarkar battle a stormy sea when he attempted his legendary escape at Marseilles? Did Gandhiji and he stay together ‘as friends’ in London as Savarkar claimed during Gandhiji’s assassination trial? Did he turn against Muslims because of the cruelty of jailers in the Andamans? What is one to make of his ‘mercy petitions’ to the British? Did he pledge to be ‘politically useful’ to the British and accept conditions for his release that even the British had not demanded? During the Quit India movement, did Savarkar promise ‘whole-hearted cooperation’ to the British? What did he seek from the British? Was Savarkar the one who showed Subhas Bose the path that Netaji then followed?

What did Savarkar think of Hinduism, about our beliefs and ‘holy cows’, about the texts Hindus hold to be sacred? Have our people been suffused with Hindutva as Savarkar maintained? What sort of a State did he envisage? Is Savarkar being resurrected today to erase the one great inconvenience—Gandhiji?

In The New Icon, Arun Shourie delves deep into Savarkar’s books, essays, speeches, statements to answer these and other questions. He exhumes archives of the British government. He takes us through contemporary records. And unearths facts that will surprise you.

Genres: India, History

560 pages, Hardcover

Published May 27, 2025

About the author

Indian economist, journalist, author and politician.

He has worked as an economist with the World Bank, a consultant to the Planning Commission of India, editor of the Indian Express and The Times of India and a Minister of Communications and Information Technology in the Vajpayee Ministry (1998–2004). He was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 1982 and the Padma Bhushan in 1990.

Popularly perceived as one of the main Hindu nationalist intellectuals during the 90s and early 2000s.

Reviews

[Mayank Bawari · Rating 3 out of 5]

The New Icon: Savarkar and the Facts by Arun Shourie
Cover: Sparsh Raj Singh
Being a fan of Shourie’s caustic humour, dry sense of awareness and cutting quotes, this one just seems a bit lacking in execution, that after a while it becomes unclear that what exactly is Savarkar being accused of? Are his changing/evolving views a moral deficiency? Is he what Nehru/Jinnah is to INC/Muslim League or is he an ideologue closer to Gandhi/Bose?, or is his only failing that he was not a Congress Party member. His imprisonment is brushed aside as an uneventful event not of any consequence, only that it ossified his hatred of Afghan/Pathan/Muslim guards but had no qualms about the other guard Irish Barrie Baba.
At some point in the book, it made me want to read more about Savarkar than putting me off him. Memes being the only source of my full Savarkar knowledge, I was a bit surprised by the breadth of his contributions. He outlived his peers, and the seed that he sowed in early 1930, finally germinated some 50 years after his death. Nehru and Savarkar meet eye to eye on more issues than not, with the biggest ones being a single language and need for a strong federal state.
The leaps of judgement, and bad faith turns of phrases does not add much value to either the believer or an undecided centrist. His use of the “beg” quoted over and over again just to paint an image of his spinelessness, but it makes more of the case otherwise. His comparisons as a failed Mahatma is as much a compliment as an insult, and the fact that it can be construed either ways is commendable.
If the author wanted to criticise the BJP, in its inability to govern, pusillanimity in reforms, one size fits all corporate model of party functions, negative politics, calling regionalism secession, religion in election, caste based cadres, pro reservation, appropriating murderers, washing machine defections, Uniparty approach, economic mismanagement, ceaseless inflation, juking the numbers, top down dictatorial approach, bad infrastructure, taxing the unrepresented, freebie culture, TikTok PR, and absence of a feedback mechanism, then it’d be a more enlightening conversation. Only in the last part the author touch upon the latest plague armed with a selfie stick and “Hi Guys” called Religious Tourism, but only for a few lines.
A book neither for the zealot not an abuser, but somehow would be bought and left unread by both.
Personal Rating - 3/5

[Prakash Holla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Author dives deep into facts to subscribe to his view that Savarkar has been lying most of the time..so he becomes a bit repetitive in his narrative..Hindu Mahasabha, the then equivalent of BJP could hardly win 1% of seats politically as did BJP of 1986..so now what with BJP being so popular both socially and politically no wonder many consider Savarakar “Veer”..bulldozing the facts..just like Yogi Adityanath recently stating that Ganga water at Triveni Sangam is drink worthy bulldozing all reports that are to contrary..author furnishes extensive evidence to portray Savarkar as a staunch Hindutva supporter without scruples..

[Gourang Ambulkar · Rating 3 out of 5]

OK, so let me qualify my review ,with the intent of disclosure, by attesting that I was a clean slate and neutral about Savarkar as far as my reading about/by him is concerned. Only 2 facts were known to me, 1. That he was born in a suburb of my hometown Nashik and had ( and continues ro have) considerably powerful image in my hometown. 2. The words of pride about him that were echoed through the years from my Parents and my network group. But rest assured neither has played any part through reading this terse book. Now the review( warning it's a long one)-

This book can be broadly classified into 3 eras in the life of Savarkar, his life till release from Andaman , post the release and the episode of Gandhi assassination.

1. Up until the release - The Author seems to have confused Savarkar as a mere revolutionary foot soldier as contrasted by Savarkar's role as paving the vision for revolutionary action for the hands on Revolutionaries ( Dhingra, Khudiram, Kanhere, Apte, Godse et al). So his lengthy discourse on how Savarkar just wrote stuff and instigated rather than doing it himself seems misplaced, because that was never his self construed role. That is amply evident from the excerpts that the Author goes on to present throughout the book. The author therefore is terribly sour about this. Shourie definitely debunked the myth that floats about Savarkar swimming a rough Sea in order to escape. But through this debunking Shourie, uncharacteristically, inflicts a lot of malice on it. Although Savarkar has clarified it himself that the swim was much less heroic than is portrayed.
Then comes the whole portion of clemency letters that Savarkar penned from the Cellular Jail , Andaman. Shourie again, with his misplaced understanding of Savarkar being a soldier of the revolution, labels him as a Coward to pen those clemency petitions. However, as again clarified by Savarkar( cited in the book as well), those were diplomatic tactics to survive and repatriated to the mainland to continue the fight another day. Looking back in History, many a famous personalities have demonstrated that prudence is the better part of valour.Again Shourie continues to inflict a heap of malice on Savarkar for the petitions. I felt that am objective critique was demanded of Shourie, which he has betrayed. Shourie compares him to Shivaji and says that Savarkar failed in comparison to Shivaji's effort post the escape from the claws of Aurangzeb. I don't quite agree to this assessment as in the post release section, Savarkar seems to have been pretty busy with RSS and Hindu Mahasabha activities. So it left an impression that Shourie's objective criticism was replaced by a criticism that was fueled by some personal vendetta.( Read it as a vendetta of a Gandhi Bhakt).
2. Post release from Andaman - Here Shourie goes at length to showcase how Savarkar while in his whirlwind tours spoke of a sharp revolutionary stratagem and in personal communications to the British ( Linlithgow) had a much softer content. Now again Shourie expects Savarkar to be a revolutionary in his communication with the British , consistent with what he propounded to the masses. However, again if we see this from the vantage point of Savarkar as a party leader and visionary, this disparity can be qualified as Statecraft, to win representative allowances , so that his reach could have political blessings , such as enjoyed by Jinnah and Gandhi. In this same section, as the narrative progresses, Savarkar did manage to garner those political blessings , by elevating a relatively new Hindu Mahasabha ( compare this with the headstart of 30-40 years that Congress enjoyed and atleast 10 years of headstart that Muslim League enjoyed) to a force , that the party was offered a seat in the Round Table Conference to represent the Hindu interests.
Savarkar was entirely opposed to the Congress ideology of being submissive to the arm twisting tactics of Congress. Shourie goes on to show how Savarkar's Hinduism was opposed to the basic tenets of the real Hinduism, only to be refuted by Savarkar stating that tough times call for tougher actions. However, in this section the author should be credited of exposing Savarkar's twisting of the Hindu history to suit his vision of Pan India Consciousness. But again one could offer a benefit of doubt on grounds of Statecraft, similar to what the world offered Gandhi when he preached that Hinduism is all about Ahimsa, when the contrary has always been true. So again the author , falls short of his role as a objective critic, in fact if one reads between the line, one might be inclined to see a serious and sincere effort by Savarkar to reunite the Hindus ( especially post several communal massacres like Naokhali, Punjab Chaurichaura etc.) and reignite in them the flame of revolutionary action to fight tooth and nail against the oppressor.
3. Gandhi assassination - Here the real Shourie, the blind Gandhi Bhakta surfaces. Here Shouri almost conducts a trial on Savarkar for abetting the assassination. He goes at length to point out the hatred that Savarkar harbored and propagated through the country, which led to an indirect abetment of the assassination. I don't find a flaw necessarily, again like Savarkar's writings as cited by Shourie argue that the Country ought to oppose the submissive tactics of Gandhi towards Muslims, so much so that Gandhi ,in interest of avoiding the partition, offered unquestioning country leadership to Jinnah and when it didn't work, gave away 55 Crores to Pakistan. Shouri glosses over this to resume his vitriol throwing on Savarkar on the grounds of how Savarkar may have lied at the assassination trial. He hails Gandhi for how he stood tall in his trial versus how Savarkar resorted to cunning tactics. Astute readers must realise that Gandhi's trial was at a risk of maximum 6 years lenient imprisonment, whereas Savarkar's would mean hanging or a life sentence at best. So isn't it justified that Prudence should trump Valour, just to survive to fight another day. But again Shourie's misplaced expectation of Savarkar being a foot soldier conflicts with the real life position that Savarkar was playing.
Hmm, so after finishing the book, I am left with the impression that whether this exemplary work, serves some purpose of appeasing the Anti Savarkar camp ( ahem read Rahul Gandhi and co.) post his exit from the BJP pantheon.

Positives -
As always Shourie is very meticulous about the sources and citations. His language, though Caustic, appeals and the book, though terse is a fast read. Love the way he structures and elaborated his points and arguments. Truly a masterful writer.

What was missing-
1.Shourie literally glossed over the hardships, the torture and the endurance of Savarkar during his time at Andaman. But again elaborating that would throw grease on his narrative , as none of the leaders had survived such extreme hardships.
2. The monumental efforts of Savarkar to eradicate caste system and how he created a model village in Ratnagiri where caste based discrimination was abolished.
3. A critique on how justified the political exile imposed on Savarkar post independence and the propagation of anti Brahmin wave by the ruling party. How was it justified with the promise of not extending the crimes of an individual to be a representative of his caste?

So overall, I felt that this book was a bit unbecoming of Shourie's otherwise objective journalism, that I so much love.

[Harish Kamath · Rating 5 out of 5]

I began reading this book a bit skeptical of my ability to finish it. If you have had any exposure to Arun Shourie’s writing, you know him to be someone who often starts well but ends up getting lost in the details. I have given up on reading at least one of his books because of his tendency to reproduce complete passages of dreary legalese in pursuit of his overall objective. This book, however, could be the first time that this method actually works for him.

V.D. Savarkar is an enigmatic figure about whose life and achievements I was only vaguely aware before reading this book. “Freedom at Midnight” was my main source of information then, and that book didn’t have many good things to say about him, as anyone who has read it will be aware. Shourie, however, has presented a much more balanced and nuanced view of his quarry. I say quarry because he has gone after Savarkar in a way only a hunter would and, like a prosecutor at a trial, ripped the veil off and exposed his Janus face to the world. (Please read the book for the details. I don’t want to play spoiler!)

Shourie, of course, is famous for this. No one in power was safe when, as a writer for a leading English daily, he regularly trained his guns on Indian politicians and their corruption in the ‘70s and ‘80s. What defies understanding, however, is why, then, did Shourie go and join a political party and become its minister in the 1990s? One that was accused of corruption and exposed in one of the first TV sting operations of modern India, that too. To top it all, it was a Hindu right-wing party that Shourie chose to join, a party that preached the same Hindutva that Shourie is so set against in this book. Didn't he find anything objectionable about them at that time? In fact, isn’t he, through his various speeches, interviews, and writings, guilty of propagating the same Hindutva philosophy during his time in the BJP?

The only way to reconcile all this is by taking this book to be Arun Shourie’s expiation. He wants to dissociate himself from that party and is deeply sorry that he has helped unleash the forces of intolerance in our country. If that is true, there should have been at least an explicit sentence or two about it in the book, if not a whole chapter. If not true, then the purported reason for writing the book doesn’t make sense. No ‘bhakt’ will change his or her mind by reading it (if they ever get around to it, that is), and the type of reader who will read it, doesn’t need much convincing anyway.

My review wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t write something about the Savarkar who is introduced to us in the first chapter - the social reformer, the rationalist, the progressive writer, who fearlessly castigates Hindu society for its many ills (someone in his place would have to fear for his/her life in today’s environment). This is truly a heroic figure, one I quite admired and enjoyed reading about. Wish the rest of his personality had been more like this. Then we could all have agreed about his place in history.


Previous note -
This book is turning out to be one heck of an eye-opener. V.D. Savarkar was not the man I used to think he was. In fact, if not for the use of Sanskritised language (the author has translated from the original works of Savarkar in other languages), I would have thought it’s the rationalist Nehru’s quotes that I was reading! I am tempted to share some of these here as I progress through the book but will refrain as it might get me banned or something (Some of the material is quite controversial!).

[Sunil Kumar]

Save Hinduism from Hindutva is Arun Shourie's earnest plea.

Hinduism is the inner search, Hindutva is the means for social control and state domination.

Nothing new under the sun. Heard this a million times from the vacuous opposition and a Wog media that seeks Western validation all the time.

What a volte face? A hitjob by the Punjabi Brahmin on the Chitpavan Brahmin.

Admittedly, a very serious and indepth study. This is not a hagiography like other writers, but it is clear that Shourie is biased against Savarkar from the get-go. Not that Savarkar is a paragon of virtue, but the vitriol and hatred the author seems to have for the current dispensation for not giving him an important position seems to have transferred to Savarkar. In that august attempt, he speaks like the Left, Islamist critics or the Congress under its brainless ogres seem to vilify and caricature Savarkar every day.

Whatever his faults, I think Savarkar was genuinely patriotic and definitely empathetic to the nonsense and appeasement spewed by the Congress of that era to the present day. Admittedly, Shourie has shown me many warts in Savarkar's persona, many of which I was aware of and some I wasn't. Yet, abandoning Dhingra, Bhagat Singh and fraternising with Khilafat types and blind appeasement without any rationale are admittedly Gandhi's faults.

Rajagopalachari who I've admired since reading his Dharmic works as a child came up with the nonsensical Rajaji plan admittedly at the supreme father of ahimsa's behest. Indian tragedy that there were no strong leaders in the Congress after Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Gokhale who could have steered us in a slightly different direction. But what will be had to be. Que Sera Sera. The Shourie tendency comes from the same playbook that the distinguished Mr. Swamy and Yeshwant Sinha seem to have adopted. Prashasti or Qaseeda for the chosen master. Well, if you want to tell us tales about Hindu perfidy, the author needs to add himself to the list. Democracy and freedom of speech are still evident because of the very religion Savarkar sought to glorify and Shourie, a former so-called RW and nationalist icon seeks to vilify.

[Rajiv Chopra · Rating 5 out of 5]

I consider this book to be a difficult one to review. Anyone reviewing books such as this one must set aside their preconceived notions of the subject (in this case, Savarkar) and only focus on the material contained inside, the author’s treatment, and the writing style.
Arun Shourie’s approach is unique. Rather than writing a polemical biography or a hagiography, he opted to add his views to Savarkar’s voice. The book quotes Savarkar’s writing and speeches extensively. While Arun Shourie adds his voice to the analysis, you can interpret Savarkar’s words and actions for yourself.
People have written much about Savarkar. Was he a genuine social reformer who believed in equality for Hindus? He did not consider Muslims to be part of the equation. Was he a genuine iconoclast, who pierced the myths of Hindu tradition, or did he just restrict himself to making speeches and writing on such matters? Read his words, and draw your conclusions.
The material covering his relationship with the British, his criticism of Gandhi, his insistence that Hindus and Muslims, etc., are fascinating, as are his essays and speeches on ‘Hindutva.’
Whether you agree with his philosophy or not, no one can deny his ability to influence others to take action while he stays away from the battlefront. Savarkar’s interpretation of Indian history is curious and strange. I disagree with his writing on Indian history, as it revolved around the myths he wished to create.
Savarkar’s essays and speeches also reveal his fascination with violence, even though he did not engage in such acts. Anyone who analyzes the speeches and actions of today’s leaders will understand Savarkar’s impact on them.
Finally, Savarkar’s words reveal that he was a complex man, and I urge people to read this book if they wish to go beyond the myths surrounding the man.
Per a book review in Caravan Magazine, one of the book’s shortcomings is that Arun Shourie does not explain why he changed from a Savarkar admirer to a Savarkar critic. I agree with the reviewer’s statement. Arun Shourie’s journey from admirer to critic will be fascinating.

[Gurpreet Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

If this book is a hit job, then it is a very well-executed one. It is iconoclasm at its best, assisted by the tools of academic heft, extensive citations, and a single-minded focus. It is, therefore, a deeply political book, one that will evoke extreme reactions, ranging from admiration to outright dismissal as biased or the product of a frustrated mind.
Arun Shourie, a scholar, former editor, and cabinet minister, relies on Savarkar’s own writings rather than the hagiographies penned by his admirers. The book opens with a chapter that introduces us to the rationalist Savarkar, whose words—if spoken today—could easily provoke the wrath of religion. What follows are chapters on his attempted escape from the porthole at Marseilles, his supposed role in inspiring revolutionary spirit among followers in London, his meeting with Bose and connection to the INA, his wholehearted cooperation with the British during the Quit India Movement, his theory of Hindutva, his criticism of Buddhism, his sutra for the state, and, of course, his hatred for Gandhi.
This is not a traditional biography. Rather, Shourie demystifies the aura around Savarkar, focusing on specific myths and systematically deconstructing them.
It is a powerful and provocative read and I highly recommend it.

[Abhinav Yadav · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is important for us to understand that there is much written material available which might be written with malice, lies, and simply cloaking reality. The current state of India is not encouraging where inspiration and sense of pride is being sought in past. As a society, we must be forward looking and take good actions right now. There's no point in seeking refuge in past.

This person wrote a hyperbole for himself under pseudonym. And canvassed for himself. The book sheds light on both positives and negatives of this icon. I resonate with his idea of caste annihilation but the religious divide and India for Hindus only is far fetched idea. (The term "Hindi" includes everyone living east to the Sindhu Valley.)

Our forefathers never envisioned a monolithic India. The beauty of India lies in its diversity - of culture, people, language, food, clothes, and faith. There's no threat to Hinduism if others coexist. The Hinduism should be of peaceful coexistence. It must provide protective cover to all minorities, like a elder brother rather than fighting with siblings.

[Sanjay Banerjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always enjoyed reading Arun Shourie’s books. I have found him to have researched the subject of his writings well and deeply. His writings have also carried his editor’s incisiveness. In the latest instance, the author critically examines the writings and the personality of the Hindutva icon - Savarkar. He highlights the complex personality of the gentleman as well as his views on Hinduism and Hindutva through his analytical research of his many writings.

[Abhishek Prakash · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book gives a well researched understanding of Savarkar as a person against Savarkar as an icon, and its truly an eye opener. however , the book (if you can call it that, since its more like comparative notes) is a tough read because of the comparative nature as well as a person like Savarkar himself...