An uproar that marked the State’s name change from ‘Madras’ to ‘Tamil Nadu’
On February 24, 2026, the BJP-led government at the Center approved the proposal of the CPI(M)-led regime in Kerala to change the name of the state to ‘Keralam’, the Malayalam term. Nearly 50 years ago, when the DMK regime, which came to power by removing the national party from power, wanted the title of the state to be changed from ‘Madras’ to Tamil Nadu, the Congress government had done this for Tamil Nadu.
It is known that the “chill moment”, as described by diplomat-turned-writer R. Kannan in his perceptive book, is common knowledge. DMK YearsIt came on July 18, 1967, nearly four months after the Dravidian major sensationally seized power, unseating the Congress that had ruled the state for 20 years. That day, the State Assembly unanimously passed a resolution calling for changes to the State name.
However, as early as March 1961, the Congress government informed the Legislative Council and the Assembly that it would henceforth restrict the use of the name ‘Chennai’ to the capital of the state and the name ‘Tamil Nadu’ to the capital of the state in official communications in Tamil. R. Venkataraman, who was the Minister of Industries in the then Congress regime, had named the State as “Tamizh Nadu”.
However, there are many unknown or little-known aspects of the name change section. On Tamil New Year Day (April 14, 1967), the then Chief Minister CN Annadurai officially initiated the name change process when he unveiled the State Government’s new neon-lit name board on the Secretariat: ‘Tamizhagha Arasu – Thalaimai Cheyalagam’ (Chief Secretariat of the Government of Tamil Nadu).
The Tamil name on the neon lights of the Madras Government Secretariat (Fort St. George) above the Prime Minister’s office, seen in 1967. | Photo Credit: Hindu Archives
The then Education Minister VR Nedunchezhian called for English to be given second place in name boards for the benefit of non-Tamils. The latter went so far as to say that the change was the “fruit of the aspirations” of poet Subramania Bharati, who dreamed of a great and glorious future for Tamil and Tamil Nadu. The then Public Works Minister (PWD) M. Karunanidhi said that some critics claimed that the word ‘Tamizhagham’ did not find a place in old grammatical texts. But epic Silappadikaram, he talked about his word, Hindus In the report published on April 16, 1967, his words were quoted as follows:
Just a year later, the Union government sent the draft law on name change to the DMK government for feedback. Originally the State was supposed to be called ‘Tamil Nad’ in Tamil. However, in another report of this newspaper dated April 24, 1968, it was stated that the article was changed to ‘Tamil Nadu’ upon the suggestion of the former Governor General of the country, C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji or CR). This time the diary had quoted the then Law Minister S. Madhavan.
There was enough drama seven months later when the bill was to be taken up by the Lok Sabha for consideration and adoption. At 3.18 pm on November 21, Deputy Speaker Raghunath Keshav Khadilkar called Union Home Minister YB Chavan to propose the bill to change the name of Madras State but the Minister was “not around”. So were his junior ministers. In the minutes of that day’s debate in the House, the Deputy Speaker observed that Chavan “was not here”. Salem MP K. Rajaram, representing DMK, immediately suggested Tenkasi (SC) RS Arumugam Congress MP to introduce the bill. Another parliamentarian from the DMK, V. Krishnamoorthi, later popularly known as Nellikuppam Krishnamoorthi, complained that “Ministers should at least be here to pass the bill into law”.
YB Chavan. File. | Photo Credit: Hindu Archives
Mumbai-Central Congress MP RD Bhandare, who is also a legal advocate and professor, stated that the Law Minister was trying to find a way out by saying: [P. Govinda Menon, an alumnus of the Madras Law College and Chief Minister of Travancore-Cochin during 1955-56] He can put the bill on the table. However, the reply of the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament was as follows: “If that [Law Minister] He writes to me that he wants to act in someone else’s place, I cannot allow this. If he writes, I will let him.” When Krishnamoorthi volunteered to introduce the bill, Khadilkar adjourned the House.
When the House reconvened about an hour later, Samarendra Kundu, Praja Socialist Party’s MP from Balasore (Odisha) and later External Affairs Minister during the Janata regime (1977-79), lashed out at the Ministers. “This is a shame for the Parliament” [the] “Ministers do not come prepared, they do not take the Parliament seriously,” said Kundu, and when he demanded the dismissal of the Ministers, there were interruptions in the Lok Sabha.
Later, senior Communist leader Hirendranath Mukherjee (Calcutta – North East), better known as Hiren Mukherjee, started speaking and he too did not spare the government. Noting that he has been a member of the House of Representatives since 1952, Mukherjee said, “Something unprecedented has happened.” He had also consulted a person connected with the Central Legislative Assembly. [Central Legislative Assembly, a precursor to Parliament post-Independence]’ he said and was told that there was no such precedent.
Referring to the Deputy Speaker’s decision to adjourn the Assembly, the senior Communist described it as “an expression of condemnation of the functioning of the government, not the policy of the government.” DMK’s Mettur MP S. Kandappan stated that not a single minister from the Home Ministry was present when the Parliament had to take action on the bill. Although the Deputy Ministers Responsible for Defense and Law were present along with other Ministers, the Bill was not introduced. “I had a feeling they had no interest in passing this bill. If not, what was stopping them from taking it up?”
Kundu was allowed to speak again and all Union Ministers were held accountable for their “indifferent and chivalrous” treatment of the House. Expressing his surprise, he added that Ministers “care about this Parliament”. “This Congress Government has completely usurped the privileges of this House,” the ministers added.
Piloo Mody, an energetic parliamentarian of the Swatantra Party and representative of Godhra, known for his sarcasm and harsh criticism of Indira Gandhi, made scathing remarks about the Congress government: “Over the years, we have seen an authoritarian tendency developing in this country, and that Parliament has increasingly come to see Parliament as a mere function rather than the essence of the Government. Over the years, we have seen that everything discussed in Parliament is not given due consideration by the Government, and the Government has come to see itself as a separate entity from Parliament, which does not derive its equitable powers from Parliament.” South Bombay MP George Fernandes of the Samyukta Socialist Party (SSP), who earned the nickname “giant killer” by defeating former Union Minister SK Patil in 1967, had even filed a notice of breach of privilege, but this was not allowed by the President.
Chavan explained to the House that he was in the Rajya Sabha when the bill had to be moved for the first time. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ram Subhag Singh and Home Minister VC Shukla apologized for the absence of the Ministers concerned. Both described the period of absence as a “transition”. Singh assured the House that “we will do our best to ensure this does not happen again”.
Vidya Charan Shukla. File. | Photo Credit: Sandeep Saxena.
Shukla reminded that the State legislature, which considered the issue of name change in 1956, decided not to recommend any change. On 4 April 1961, the State government issued an order directing its civil servants to use Tamil Nadu as the name of the Madras State in all future official correspondence in Tamil. Tracing the brief history of the bill, Shukla explained that the government was guided by the wishes of the legislature. He described Kandappan’s observations as “unfortunate”.
Menon explained why the name change was made only through legislation and not through an amendment to the Constitution. Quoting the essence of the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision: IC Golak Nath and Ors. Against Punjab Province and Ors. In the case, the Law Minister said that only the name change from ‘Madras’ to ‘Tamil Nadu’ was proposed and “there is no restriction on the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 31A”. [which comes under Part III titled Fundamental Rights].”
Thanking the government for the bill, Murasoli Maran (DMK) said that for the last 15 years, the people of his state have wanted a name “blessed with the long history and the rich heritage of their language” to be given to their state.
On 22 November, Chavan apologized for his absence the previous day while participating in the debate on the bill. He revealed to the House during a debate on the issue that Chief Minister Annadurai was considering another “musical name”. However, he was persuaded that Annadurai should have “a name that would be understood by everyone”. During his speech, Chavan described the visit of a Tamil academic who spoke in Tamil for about 15 minutes at an event on his theme. [Chavan’s] he demanded, telling the House that “this is a very musical language.” Describing the measure as a general expression of national pride, the Home Minister hoped that the new name would take the State a step closer to the integration of the country.
Hindu the next day he reported: “A Union Minister [for Transport and Shipping] Dr. VKRV Rao also joined the discussion and supported the measure. He appealed to the ruling party in Madras to ensure that Hindi has a dignified place in Tami Nadu.”
In its editorial dated 25 November 1968, this newspaper, citing the Lok Sabha’s unanimous support for the legislation, stated that “no one outside feels any grudge against the name he has chosen for Tamil Nadu”. On December 1, at what was then called Children’s Theater and later renamed Kalaivanar Arangam [which stood at the present site of the recently-built structure having the identical name] At the Government House in Chennai, the renaming of the State was celebrated with Chief Minister Annadurai’s first public appearance since suffering from cancer of the esophagus. According to this newspaper’s report dated December 2, 1968, he received a standing ovation when he started speaking. He called for steps that would make it easier for “Tamilians to live like Tamilians” and secure much-needed changes in the political sphere for the State within the country’s constitutional framework.
On December 5, Rajya Sabha passed the bill. The new name came into force on ‘Thai Pongal’ day, 14 January 1969.
