BJP led government formed on February 24, 2026 The Center approved the CPI(M)-led rule in Kerala’s proposal to change the name of the state to ‘Keralam’.Name used in Malayalam language. Nearly 50 years ago, the Congress government did the same for Tamil Nadu, when the DMK regime, which came to power by ousting the national party, wanted the title of the state changed from ‘Madras’ to Tamil Nadu.
It is common knowledge that “the moment of frisson”, as diplomat-turned-author R. Kannan describes in his conceptual book, dmk yearsOn July 18, 1967, about four months after the Dravidian chief had sensationally seized power, the Congress, which had ruled the state for 20 years, was overthrown. That day, the state assembly unanimously adopted a resolution calling for a change in the state’s name.
But, as early as March 1961, the Congress government informed the Legislative Council and Assembly that it would henceforth, in official communications in Tamil, limit the use of the name ‘Chennai’ for the state capital and ‘Tamil Nadu’ for the state. R. Venkataraman, who was the then Industries Minister in the Congress regime, had called the state “Tamizh Nadu”.
However, there are many unknown or lesser known aspects of the chapter regarding the name change. It was on Tamil New Year Day (April 14, 1967) that the then Chief Minister CN Annadurai formally initiated the name change process when he switched on the state government’s new neon-lit name board on the Secretariat, which read: ‘Tamizhagha Arasu – Thalaimai Cheylagam’ (Government of Tamil Nadu Chief Secretariat).
Tamil name in neon lights of the Madras Government Secretariat (Fort St George), above the Chief Minister’s Chamber, as seen in 1967. Photo Courtesy: The Hindu Archives
The then Education Minister VR Nedunchezhiyan called for giving second place to English in name boards for the benefit of non-Tamils. The latter even said that the change was the “fruit of the longings” of the poet Subramaniam Bharati, who dreamed of a great and glorious future for Tamil and Tamil Nadu. The then Public Works (PWD) Minister M. Karunanidhi said that some critics had argued that the word ‘Tamizhagham’ did not find a place in ancient grammar texts. But, epic, Silappadikaram, mentioned the word, Hindu’s He is quoted as saying in the report published on April 16, 1967.
Only a year later, the central government sent a draft bill on name change to the DMK government for its response. Originally, the state was called ‘Tamilnad’ in Tamil. But, another report in this newspaper on April 24, 1968, said that the spelling was changed to ‘Tamil Nadu’ on the suggestion of the country’s former Governor-General C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji or CR). This time, the daily asked the then Law Minister S. Madhavan was cited.
Seven months later, when the Bill was to be introduced in the Lok Sabha for consideration and passing, there was a lot of drama. At 3:18 pm on 21 November, Deputy Speaker Raghunath Keshav Khadilkar called on Union Home Minister YB Chavan to introduce the bill to rename Madras State, but the minister was “absent”. His junior ministers were also like this. The Deputy Chairman observed that Chavan was “not here”, the transcript of the House debate for the day states. Immediately, K. Rajaram, the Salem MP representing the DMK, suggested that Tenkasi (SC) Congress MP RS Arumugam introduce the bill. Another DMK MP, V. Krishnamurthy, later popularly known as Nellikuppam Krishnamurthy, complained that “the ministers should at least be here to push the bill.”
YB Chavan. file. | Photo Courtesy: The Hindu Archives
The Congress MP from Bombay-Central, RD Bhandare, also a lawyer and law professor, sought to find a way out by telling the Law Minister (P. Govinda Menon, an alumnus of Madras Law College and Chief Minister of Travancore-Cochin during 1955–56) that he could introduce the Bill. But, the Deputy Chairman replied: “Unless he (Law Minister) writes to me that he would like to act in someone else’s place, I cannot allow it. If he writes, I will allow him.” When Krishnamurthy voluntarily introduced the bill, Khadilkar adjourned the House.
When the House resumed after about an hour, Samarendra Kundu, Praja Socialist Party MP from Balasore (Odisha), who later became Minister of State for External Affairs during the Janata rule (1977-79), lashed out at the ministers. Kundu said, “It is an insult to the House that ministers do not come prepared, they do not take the House seriously.” There was disruption in the Lok Sabha when they wanted the ministers to be dismissed.
Subsequently, a veteran communist leader Hirendranath Mukherjee (Calcutta – North East), popularly known as Hiren Mukherjee, rose to speak and he too did not spare the government. Pointing out that he has been a member of the House since 1952, Mukherjee said, “Something has happened which is without precedent.” He also consulted a person “who was associated with the Central Legislature (the Central Legislative Assembly, the predecessor of Parliament after independence)” and was told that there was no such precedent.
Referring to the Deputy Chairman’s decision to adjourn the House, the veteran communist called it “an expression of condemnation not on the politics of the government, but on the functioning of the government”. DMK MP from Mettur S. Kandappan said that when the House had to work on the bill, not a single minister from the Home Ministry was present. Although the Deputy Minister of Defense and Law was present along with other ministers, the Bill was not introduced. “I was wondering if he had any interest in passing this bill. If not, what stopped him from taking it up?”
Kundu was allowed to speak again, and held all Union ministers responsible for behaving in a “casual and disrespectful manner” with the House. Expressing his surprise, he said that the minister “cares about this Parliament.” “The ministers of this Congress government have completely snatched away the privileges of this House,” he said.
Pilu Modi, an active Swatantra Party MP and representative of Godhra, who is known for his sarcasm and scathing criticism of Indira Gandhi, commented sharply on the Congress government: “In the last few years, we have found an authoritarian tendency developing in this country, which has started seeing Parliament as merely a function of the government rather than its essence. We have found in the last few years that whatever is discussed in Parliament is not adequately considered by the government, and the government has Have started doing this.” Consider itself an entity separate from Parliament, and not deriving its proper powers from Parliament.” George Fernandes, the Samyukta Socialist Party (SSP) MP from Bombay South, who earned the sobriquet of “giant killer” by defeating former Union minister SK Patil in 1967, had also filed a notice of breach of privilege, which was rejected by the Chairman.
Chavan clarified to the House that he was in the Rajya Sabha when the bill was to be introduced for the first time. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ram Subhag Singh and Minister of State for Home VC Shukla expressed regret over the absence of the concerned ministers. Both described the episode of absence as an “omission”. “We will do our best to ensure that this is never repeated,” Singh assured the House.
Vidyacharan Shukla. file. | Photo courtesy: Sandeep Saxena.
Shukla reminded that in 1956, the state legislature, which had considered the issue of name change, had decided not to recommend any change. On April 4, 1961, the state government issued an order directing its officials that Tamil Nadu should be used as the name of Madras State in Tamil in all future official correspondence. Tracing the brief history of the bill, Shukla pointed out that the government was guided by the will of the legislature. He described Kandappan’s comments as “unfortunate”.
Menon clarified why the name change was being done only through legislation and not through an amendment to the Constitution. It quotes the essence of the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision IC Golak Nath and others. Versus State of Punjab and Ors. In the case, the Law Minister said that only the name change – from ‘Madras’ to ‘Tamil Nadu’ – was proposed and “does not entail any diminution of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 31A (which falls under Part III titled Fundamental Rights).”
Murasoli Maran (DMK), thanking the government for the Bill, said that for the last 15 years, the people of his state wanted their state to be “sanctified by their long history and the rich heritage of their language.”
Participating in the debate on the bill on 22 November, Chavan apologized for his absence the previous day. He revealed in the House that when they had discussed the topic, Chief Minister Annadurai had thought of some other “musical name”. But Annadurai had to come up with a name that everyone could understand. During his speech, Chavan referred to the visit of a Tamil scholar who, at his (Chavan’s) request, spoke in Tamil for about 15 minutes at an event and told the House that “it is a very musical language.” Describing the move as a simple expression of national pride, the Home Minister expressed hope that the new name will bring the state one step closer to the integration of the country.
The Hindu The next day the report said that “New ground was broken when Dr. VKRV Rao, a Union Minister (Transport and Shipping), also participated in the debate supporting the measure. He appealed to the ruling party in Madras to see that Hindi gets a respectable place in Tamil Nadu.”
This newspaper, in its editorial on November 25, 1968, cited the unanimous support in the Lok Sabha for this law and said that “Nobody outside Tamil Nadu is upset about having a name of their choice.” On 1 December, at what was then called the Children’s Theater and later renamed Kalaivanar Arangam (which stood on the present site of a recently built structure bearing the same name), the renaming of the state was celebrated with Chief Minister Annadurai making his first public appearance since his throat cancer diagnosis. When he stood up to speak he was given a standing ovation, this newspaper reported on December 2, 1968. He called for steps to facilitate “Tamils living as Tamils” and to secure much-needed changes in the political sphere for the state within the framework of the constitutional framework of the country.
On 5 December, the Rajya Sabha adopted the bill. The new name came into effect on January 14, 1969, the day of ‘Thai Pongal’.
