Someone somewhere does get triggered with well structured arguments, after all. Be that as it may, a few pointless points on why it does not quite make sense to address the individual as he is, as it stands.
For a supposed advocate and adherents of annihilation, surnames bear the chain's pain. A chain that begs breakage, needs not an extension with more links. Now, a counter to this is a la the Tamizh land's usage to reclaim pride, would puncture you original premise.
Yet again, be that as it also may, the question then is of the surname being one of a valid stature or not. Or, was that something provided by functional constraints by a third party? If you advance the former, then you are unaware of things as they were and would need a primer or a hundred in history. Accepting the latter, you end up again, with a quick sand that kills slow. The student's acceptance kills your moot for aeons.
On the point of surnames and projected consistent concerns, there's more to consider. The advocate uses it in reference to, or communicating with the Gujarati gentleman of his age. Acrimonious as it in general was, the point of its stature, does not get lost. Neither would the point of irony of sarcasm too, if advanced, for it is nought.
The American practice of last names for address till well acquainted is of intrigue, here. Contextual and cultural considerations flip it on its head, unless one advances aping. This set aside, there would be no ironical stature, in addressing. Mr, as a honorific, does augment well the anointed angel of the constitution.