Keezhadi excavation report under review, time bracket not justified: Minister
Culture Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat said the time bracket of 8th-5th century BCE given for Period 1 in the report was 'not justified at all'. 'For the earliest period in the present state of our knowledge we can, at the maximum, suggest it originates somewhere in pre-300 BC,' he said in an annexure attached with the response to a question by DMK MP T Sumathy.
Keezhadi is an ancient site in Tamil Nadu's Sivaganga district, about 12 km from Madurai. Over a decade ago, Amarnath Ramakrishna, ASI's then Superintending Archaeologist, led excavations at the site that unearthed evidence of a sophisticated urban society.
According to the Keezhadi report, carbon dating had revealed the objects to be over 2,160 years old, corresponding to the Sangam era in Tamil history. It classified the site's history into three periods — Pre-Early Historic (8th-5th century BCE), Mature Early Historic (5th-1st century BCE) and Early Historic (1st century BCE-3rd century CE).
The report triggered a controversy between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government and the NDA-ruled Centre, after the ASI, which comes under the Union Ministry of Culture, asked Ramakrishna to review his report. The DMK saw this as an attempt by the Centre to pressure Ramakrishna to 'change' his findings.
DMK MP Sumathy had asked the Ministry if the Keezhadi report prepared was officially reviewed by the Government after submission in June 2025, seeking details of the specific deficiencies cited by the Government or ASI leading to its rejection.
In his reply, Shekhawat said: 'Keezhadi excavation has been conducted under the aegis of ASI and a report of lead archaeologist is under review. The comments of experts have been shared with the lead archaeologist, which are still to be finalised.' However, the minister added, 'there is no practice of rejecting a report'.
In the annexure, which details excerpts from experts' observations, on the basis of which Ramakrishna has been asked to review the report, Shekhawat said the 'missing details' require the village map to be redrawn and the cultural period to be reoriented as specified, among other things.
'As per experts suggestion: a) the nomenclatures of the three periods require change; b) the time bracket of 8th century BC to 5th century BCE given for Period 1 is not justified at all; c) The other two periods should also be determined on the basis of scientific AMS dates and the material recovered in view of stratigraphical details. For the earliest period in the present state of our knowledge we can, at the maximum, suggest that it originates somewhere in pre-300 BCE…' the annexure said.
On June 10, Shekhawat had said further studies were needed to validate the ASI findings on an ancient civilisation at Keezhadi.
In response to another question by DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran, the Ministry informed Parliament Monday that ASI has not requested any 'revised report' on the site from the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology.
Maran also asked details of the 'additional excavation phases and funding support' by ASI for the tenth phase of Keezhadi excavation that began on June 18, 2024, which has already 'identified six terracotta pipelines and various urban settlement structures'. To this, Shekhawat replied: 'Question does not arise.'
Divya A reports on travel, tourism, culture and social issues - not necessarily in that order - for The Indian Express. She's been a journalist for over a decade now, working with Khaleej Times and The Times of India, before settling down at Express. Besides writing/ editing news reports, she indulges her pen to write short stories. As Sanskriti Prabha Dutt Fellow for Excellence in Journalism, she is researching on the lives of the children of sex workers in India. ... Read More
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
13 minutes ago
- Hans India
Congress chides BJP over BC reservation remarks
Hyderabad: The ruling Congress party has vehemently criticised the state president of the BJP following his comments suggesting it was 'impossible' to increase Backward Classes (BCs) reservation to 42% and include it in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. BC Welfare Minister Ponnam Prabhakar, Government Whip Aadi Srinivas, MLA Beerla Ilaiah, and numerous other Congress leaders condemned the remarks as an attempt by the BJP to obstruct progress on the reservation issue at both national and state levels. Minister Prabhakar asserted that the newly appointed BJP state president was 'revealing his true colours' shortly after assuming office. He expressed strong reservations over the claims, demanding an explanation for the assertion that a 42% increase in BC reservation and its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule were unachievable. Prabhakar reminded critics that similar action was successfully undertaken in neighbouring Tamil Nadu in the past. He challenged BJP MPs representing Telangana to resign if they truly believed the reservations could not be implemented, stating, 'We will see why the reservations are not implemented.' Pointing to the successful completion of the caste census, the Minister suggested that with credible state-level information, such a move was indeed possible. 'That is why the state government has conducted the survey and is awaiting Centre's decision for constitutional amendments and President's approval,' he stated. The Minister emphasised that the decision ultimately rests with the central government, reiterating the state government's commitment to 42% reservations. He urged all BC communities and caste groups in Telangana to 'observe the true nature of the BJP' and actively participate in safeguarding the reservation process. Prabhakar also noted that according to credible reports, the information regarding reservations is currently before the Supreme Court. He expressed a lack of faith in the BJP delivering justice to BCs, citing the party's failure to appoint a BC as its own state president. He concluded that 'social justice is possible only with the Congress.'
Hans India
13 minutes ago
- Hans India
Cong taunts BJP's BC leaders over ‘Upper Caste' state chief
Hyderabad: The Congress party on Tuesday challenged Backward Classes (BC) leaders within the BJP to respond to comments made by their newly appointed state president, N Ramchander Rao. Rao had reportedly questioned the Telangana state government's sincerity regarding a proposed 42 per cent reservation for BCs, citing an 'unscientific approach.' Speaking to media at Gandhi Bhavan, Congress official spokesperson B Lingam Yadav asserted that if BJP MPs Bandi Sanjay Kumar, D Aravind, and Eatala Rajender failed to counter the remarks from their new state president, it would convey a misleading message that the BJP is a party opposed to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and BCs. The Congress leader affirmed that the Revanth government's objective is to implement reservations mirroring the model in Tamil Nadu, which has successfully navigated the constraints of reservation caps. 'The BC leaders in BJP should respond,' Yadav pressed. 'Bandi Sanjay, Aravind, Etela Rajender should respond to Ramchandra's comments on BC reservations. If 42 per cent reservation is not given to BCs, BCs would be further marginalised.' He vowed, 'We will achieve 42 per cent reservation by building pressure on Centre and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.' Yadav further contended that those opposing the reservation now are the same leaders who championed 'Kamandal politics' as a counter to the 'Mandal Commission' recommendations in the past.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Himachal tribal woman marries 2 brothers: What the law says on polyandry
The Trans-Giri region in Himachal Pradesh witnessed a centuries-old customary practice recently, when a woman, Sunita Chauhan, married two brothers, Pradeep and Kapil Negi. This polyandrous tradition is locally known as 'Jodidaran'.The Hatti tribe has seen five such marriages in the past six years. Notably, the community was granted the status of Scheduled Tribes (STs) by the Centre in 2022. Their practice of polyandry has roots in the desire to preserve undivided family land, particularly agricultural land. According to supporters of the tradition, it has also served as a means to reinforce familial bonds between brothers and provided more security to women. Is polyandry legal in India? Polyandry and polygamy are outlawed by the Special Marriages Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and criminalised under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. While religious personal laws specifically govern marriage, the Constitution also recognises the relevance of prevailing customary laws among STs. The Constitution, under Article 342, recognises STs and accords them a distinct legal status. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governs marriage applicable to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. Section 2(2) of the Act includes a carve-out stating that its provisions do not apply to STs 'unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.' In the absence of such a notification, the Hattis continue to be governed by laws laid down under their customs, which are undocumented and uncodified. The Act defines 'custom' under Section 3 as a rule that has been 'observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law.' But for a customary law to be valid, it must also hold the standard of certainty, reasonableness, and consistency with public policy. When challenged, these laws do not automatically gain legal recognition; courts have to be provided with proper evidence that such customary laws prevail. Much debate surrounds the applicability of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to such situations. In 2024, the Uttarakhand government, by enacting UCC, provided a legal framework for inheritance, marriage, divorce, and adoption. The UCC mandates the registration of marriage, establishes equal rights of spouses across religions and communities and prohibits polygamy. However, it does not apply to STs, following a Constitutional pattern of upholding their customary practices. Section 2 of the Uniform Civil Code Rules, Uttarakhand, 2025 states that 'these rules shall not be applicable to the members of any Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 read with Article 342 of the Constitution of India and the persons and group of persons whose customary rights are protected under Part XXI of the Constitution of India.' What has the court said on the issue? Increasingly, courts have read customary laws prevalent among STs with the rights to equality, dignity and life and liberty as enshrined under the Constitution. Any law that is in conflict with fundamental rights is struck down as unconstitutional. For example, the Supreme Court declared the practice of triple talaq as customary and therefore unconstitutional under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. It was deemed arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, dignity and the right to life. Similarly, in 2018, the SC ruled that the customary practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabrimala temple in Kerala was unconstitutional. The apex court held that this restriction violated the fundamental rights of women, including the right to equality and the freedom of religion under Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution. On July 17, the SC in Ram Charan & Ors. Versus Sukhram & Ors, a case related to succession rights for tribal women, reaffirmed this principle. It held that when a custom is silent on inheritance, there is no restriction in law that women should be prevented from inheriting ancestral property. The apex court observed that 'customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right.' The ruling affirmed that excluding female heirs solely based on customary male preferences violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
