The destruction of Tamil Nadu government records, including those related to the anti-Hindi agitation during the last days of Congress rule in 1967, came to the fore recently with the publication of an article in this newspaper last month. However, what has been overlooked in the public discourse is the version of the then Chief Minister M. Bhaktavatsalam (1897-1987), on whose orders the documents were destroyed. When the DMK first came to power in 1967, the last Congress chief minister in the state, who held office from October 1963 to March 1967, lost in Sriperumbudur. Five of his cabinet colleagues were also defeated. As an administrator, he earned a reputation for sticking to the rules.
Within weeks of the DMK taking office, the issue of destruction of files came up in the Assembly. During the debate, DMK’s first Chief Minister, CN Annadurai, said that “probably” Bhaktavatsalam thought he (Annadurai) would feel pain when he read about the mistreatment of his colleague M. Karunanidhi, which the latter had not disclosed to him, according to a report in The Hindu on 30 March 1967.
“The police threatened”
Bhaktavatsalam defended his act. A Hindu report the next day quoted him as saying that he had seen reports during the election campaign of Karunanidhi (then Public Works Minister) saying that if he became Home Minister, he would deal with the police “who are not behaving”. Claiming that it was “not right” for Karunanidhi to threaten the police, he recalled that at the time of independence, the British government had deleted files on Congressmen before handing over the administration.
But Karunanidhi recounted in his autobiography Nenjukku Needhi (Volume 1) what he told the media at the time: he denied ever making these observations. Also, it might be right for the former chief minister to cite a British precedent, but as far as he (Karunanidhi) is concerned, Bhaktavatsalam’s reason was more “wrong” than his original “wrong”. When many demanded strict action against Bhaktavatsalam, Annadurai, in keeping with “his characteristic of being magnanimous”, did not act against him, Karunanidhi noted.
The Hindu on 31 March 1967 threw more light on the rationale behind Bhaktavatsalam’s actions. “When it became clear that there was going to be a change of government in Madras, Mr. Bhaktavatsalam said he was ‘advised’ (not by the police) that documents relating to certain politicians against whom arrest warrants were issued might not be kept so that they would not be available to the very people who were likely to take over the government.
Pointing out that “intelligence is the very part of governance”, Bhaktavatsalam said those entrusted with this responsibility should do their work objectively. If the ministers knew about those officers who reported on them, they would be biased against the officers. “Police officers should not be victimized or fear victimization,” he told reporters. If the officers were exposed, they would not do their job fearlessly. It was against these circumstances that he acted on advice.
Advice to the police
Describing as “unfortunate” Annadurai’s remarks in the Assembly that the previous government would have no qualms about destroying files when it “had the heart to shoot down 500 persons”, Bhaktavatsalam claimed that none of the files destroyed had any reference to the number of people killed. He urged the police to be a “limb” of the new government, as the previous government had been in intelligence work. In his autobiography Enathu Ninaivugal, published by the Jananayaga Seva Sangam in October 1971, he reiterated the gist of his explanation. He also pointed out that Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Thiruvalluvar’s Thirukkural emphasized intelligence as a vital activity in government.
Despite his complicated reasoning, many leaders criticized his decision to destroy the records. Addressing the rally, Annadurai said that no files related to the anti-Hindi imposition agitation had been moved to the Union Home Ministry. In the Rajya Sabha, the indomitable Bhupesh Gupta (CPI) raised it twice in two months. On 31 March 1967, opening a debate on the interim budget of Rajasthan, then under President’s rule, Gupta called Bhaktavatsalam’s order “extremely dangerous” and claimed that the defeated chief minister “may even order the entire secretariat to be burnt”, according to a report in The Hindu.
Gupta and members of Praja Socialist Party and Samyukta Socialist Party clashed with Home Minister YB Chavan and Minister of State for Home VC Shukla on June 9 over the destruction of records in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. Regarding the southern state, Chavan reiterated that the Center had not issued any order to burn documents. However, according to the transcript of today’s Rajya Sabha proceedings, the state has asked for the return of certain documents.
Five years later, Karunanidhi, who became Chief Minister in 1969, and Bhaktavatsalam became involved in a dispute over the matter, as the former alleged that files relating to the 1965 Tiruvannamalai clash were burnt at the latter’s behest. Bhaktavatsalam reiterated that he had ordered the removal from the file of documents relating to confidential police reports on certain politicians on the basis of which action had been taken. He recorded it himself in the relevant file. “I have not touched any other file,” he was quoted as saying in a report by this newspaper on April 1, 1972. Two years later, AIADMK headquarters secretary HV Hande, who became health minister in MGR’s cabinet, mentioned the problem in his criticism of the Congress leader, recalling Annadurai’s statement in the Assembly that 13 files had been destroyed.
Time agreement
The system of destroying files and other records is still in vogue and the Public Records Act 1993 prescribes how to deal with the destruction or disposal of records. A cross-section of senior officials, both serving and retired, says that, like the West, India follows a time limit system for declassification. By law, this is usually 25 years. This principle was also incorporated into the policy of the Ministry of Defense (2021) in the area of archives. With the e-filing system being increasingly pursued by both the Center and state governments, there is a perception that the guidelines have not yet been comprehensive in the digital era. Regardless of the improvement in the scheme of things, the idea of the authorities should be to create an open administration at all levels so that matters like the Bhaktavatsalam controversy are studied dispassionately.
Published – 06 March 2026 05:30 IST
