How unearthing Keeladi became a row over India's past

India Today

22-06-2025

Archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna, who led the initial phases of excavation at Keeladi in Tamil Nadu, has become a key figure in an ongoing national debate about the interpretation of India's ancient past. His work, which began in 2014, brought to light evidence of an early, urbanised civilisation in South India. But his recent transfer and the Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) rejection of his excavation report have rekindled discussions about the intersection of archaeology, politics and identity.The 982-page report submitted by Ramakrishna in 2023, covering the first two seasons of excavation, remains unpublished. The ASI requested revisions, citing the need for clarity on stratigraphic layers, the application of dating methods such as Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and broader interpretative consistency. Ramakrishna declined to revise the report, maintaining that the findings were based on established scientific procedures.advertisementThe Keeladi site, located near Madurai, gained prominence after excavations unearthed Tamil-Brahmi inscribed pottery, brick structures, an early drainage system, ivory dice and symbolic graffiti. These findings suggested the existence of a well-organised settlement dating back at least to the 2nd century BCE. Radiocarbon dating and stratigraphic evidence indicated a potentially earlier timeline, with some layers dated as far back as 600 BCE.The implications were significant. The discoveries offered material evidence of an advanced society in the Tamil region, prompting comparisons with the Sangam era and raising questions about prevailing narratives of ancient Indian civilisation, which have often been weighted towards North Indian contexts.
Ramakrishna's transfer to Noida in June, and the non-publication of his report, drew swift political response in Tamil Nadu. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin posted on social media: 'How many obstacles do Tamils face? We have been fighting against all of them for thousands of years, and with the help of science, we have been establishing the antiquity of our race. Yet some minds refuse to accept it. It's not the statements that need to be corrected; it's some minds.'advertisementSince 2017, observers say, Amarnath Ramakrishna has faced a sustained pattern of institutional sidelining and political persecution. His transfer to Assam in 2017, just as Keeladi's excavation was gaining national attention, was the first clear signal of an attempt to derail the narrative he was helping construct—a narrative that unearthed evidence of a sophisticated, secular, urban Tamil civilisation from the Sangam era. His subsequent postings—far removed from active fieldwork—have systematically curtailed his influence. In his new posting, he was removed from his antiquities role and retained only as director of the NMMA—a unit that has remained largely defunct since its inception in 2007.Meanwhile in Keeladi, Amarnath's successor, P.S. Sriraman, took charge of the third phase and, after excavating merely 400 square metres of land, reported there was no continuity in the brick structures earlier uncovered—a claim that sharply contradicted previous findings and was seen by many as an attempt to downplay Keeladi's historical significance.Since Ramakrishna's reassignment in 2017, Tamil Nadu's State Department of Archaeology has continued excavations at Keeladi. The site has since expanded, and a museum dedicated to its findings has been established. While the state has celebrated Keeladi as a symbol of Tamil antiquity, the Centre's call for caution appears misplaced—stemming less from methodological concerns and more from Keeladi's divergence from its preferred ideological narrative.advertisementTamil Nadu's Minister for Finance and Archaeology, Thangam Thennarasu, offered a strong response to the ASI's actions. 'Crossing countless hurdles that threaten the pride and antiquity of the Tamil race, we continue to make the world aware of the richness of our heritage and language, backed by scientific evidence. Yet, some minds still refuse to accept the truth,' he said. 'To confront such denial, reports alone are not enough; rather, we carry the responsibility of changing those minds.'Union minister for culture and tourism Gajendra Singh Shekawat said the reports were not yet technically well supported or established. 'A lot remains to be done before recognising or accrediting the findings presented by the archaeologist who conducted the survey. Let them come with more results, data and evidence, because a single finding cannot change the entire discourse. We must be cautious, and let archaeologists, historians and technical experts lead this conversation—not politicians.'In response, Thennarasu suggested the central government's reluctance to endorse Keeladi's findings stemmed from treating Tamils as 'second-class citizens'.The Keeladi debate escalated as Stalin accused the AIADMK of staying silent when the Centre downplayed the site's significance, blaming their BJP alliance for the muted response. Former minister R.B. Udhayakumar countered that it was the AIADMK government that sanctioned Rs 55 lakh for the 2018 excavations. Senior AIADMK leader Mafoi Pandiarajan who was in charge of archaeology during the AIADMK reign under Edappadi Palaniswamy hailed the latter as 'Keeladi Nayakar' (hero of Keeladi), crediting him with establishing Tamil antiquity. A senior DMK leader dismissed this, saying, 'Their belated pride in Keeladi rings hollow when they put alliance politics above Tamil identity.'advertisementCPI(M) MP from Madurai S. Venkatesan, who has closely followed the developments around Keeladi, described Ramakrishna's transfer as the latest in a series of administrative hurdles. 'Transferring an official is not in itself a major issue—it is part of administrative procedures,' he said. 'But Amarnath Ramakrishna worked on the Keeladi excavation for eight years, without compromising on the truth. He was removed, reassigned and denied the opportunity to publish his findings. Only after court intervention was he allowed to write the report.'Venkatesan noted that the ASI had assured both the court and Parliament that the report would be published within 11 months, a timeline that was not met. 'Now, at the final stage, they suddenly say more scientific evidence is needed. This, after years of delays and obstructions,' he said. He characterised the actions against Ramakrishna as setting a precedent: 'The message is clear: If you do not align with our views, this is what will be done to you. This is not just about an individual—it's a discriminatory act against Tamil Nadu and against South Indian history itself.'advertisementAt the core of the Keeladi debate lies a methodological question—how evidence is collected, dated and interpreted. Yet, observers point out that the controversy has grown far beyond technicalities. It now reflects deeper concerns about how historical narratives are constructed, whose past is legitimised and how institutions mediate questions of identity.While the precise dating of Keeladi's layers and their implications for early South Indian civilisation continue to be subjects of academic scrutiny, there is broad scholarly agreement on the site's significance. 'Keeladi has emerged as one of the most important sites in reconstructing the cultural and urban history of early South India. The findings deserve open debate—not suppression,' notes a senior archaeologist.Academics and political analysts argue that the persistent bureaucratic obstacles, the shelving of a report grounded in scientific evidence and the series of administrative actions against the archaeologist cannot be seen in isolation. They argue this is not about professional differences but more 'an attempt to discipline a regional narrative that challenges the dominant, Sanskritised version of Indian antiquity.'advertisementObservers suggest the implications go beyond archaeology. 'This is about who gets to write India's history,' said a political analyst. 'When the state selectively obstructs certain findings, it sends a message that history must serve ideology. In this case, it seems Tamil Nadu is being punished for asserting a past that does not fit the official narrative.'In this framing, the Keeladi controversy becomes not just an academic dispute but a struggle over memory, identity and power. As the analyst observed, 'The excavation trenches of Keeladi are turning into battlegrounds—not only over potsherds and carbon dates, but over who belongs in the centre of India's civilisational story.'Subscribe to India Today Magazine