Latest news with #K.AmarnathRamakrishna
The Hindu
03-07-2025
- Science
- The Hindu
TN Science Forum urges Centre to release Keeladi report forthwith
The Tamil Nadu Science Forum emphasised the scientifically-backed evidence of the Keeladi excavation and urged the Union government to release the report filed by archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna. They released a report on the importance of Keeladi excavation during an event conducted here on Thursday. The report stated that the findings of the archaeological department were based on scientific research involving discoveries based on contemporary scientific techniques and have been proven with evidence. As a basic principle, the findings too could be subjected to further evolution, it added. 'The ongoing archaeological study at Keeladi is being conducted with more advanced technology than even the genetic testing employed in Indus Valley (Harappa –Mohenjodaro) excavations,' it stated. The study has employed sophisticated scientific methodologies such 10x10 meter trenches for stratigraphy, meticulous collection of every stratum, soil sieving to retrieve micro-artifacts, drone surveys, carbon dating and multi-disciplinary collaborative research. P. Pavel Bharathi, Founder, Vaigai Archeological and Cultural Forum, said, thy did not accept the Government of India's assertion that Keeladi could not be dated before 300 BCE. 'We believe that human DNA studies from skeletal remains found in burial urns (a practice dated to around 850 BCE) in Konthagai will shed further light, especially since segments of the ancient African ancestral mother's maternal genetic lineage are found in the Uthiyan Cheral Irumporai community of Usilampatti (Virumandi),' he added. Virumandi, a man from Tamil Nadu, carries a significant genetic marker (M130) that links him to the earliest modern human migrations out of Africa, dating back approximately 70,000 years. This discovery, made by geneticists from Madurai Kamaraj University, suggests that South India was one of the first places where these early humans settled. The M130 marker is found in other non-Africans as well, but Virumandi's DNA provides a strong link to this ancient migration.
India Today
22-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
How unearthing Keeladi became a row over India's past
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
New Indian Express
10-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Keezhadi report of Amarnath Ramakrishna not scientific, well-supported: Union Culture Minister
CHENNAI: A fresh round of debate has erupted over the Keezhadi excavation issue, with Union Minister for Culture and Tourism Gajendra Singh Shekhawat reiterating what the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) stated three weeks ago, that archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna must rework his report on the Keezhadi excavations to make it more authentic. At a press conference held at the BJP headquarters in Chennai, when asked about the ASI's refusal to approve the Keezhadi excavation report, the Union Minister did not mince words. "The reports you are talking about have not been scientific. I am aware of the findings that you are mentioning. They are not yet technically well-supported and established. A lot of things are to be done." The Minister further added, "Let them come with more results, more data, more evidence, more proof, because only one finding cannot seize the discourse, because people are trying to grow the regional sentiments using this. That is not fair. We have to be very, very cautious on these things. Let the research be completed on all the parameters. Then we will take a call on this." Responding to allegations that the Union BJP-led government does not want to recognise the antiquity of Tamil culture, Shekhawat dismissed the charge.
India Today
03-06-2025
- General
- India Today
The age of historical disagreements
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated June 9, 2025)In times when historical controversies can raise enough dust to bury entire civilisations, the ancient Tamil site of Keezhadi has re-emerged as a flashpoint. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has asked the site's lead archaeologist to revise his final report of January 2023—essentially, to locate the site on a much later timeline than the 6th-8th century BC originally suggested by the has sparked fresh allegations of political interference in historical research. 'Post-dating' the site would take away all the excitement from a discovery that had conferred greater civilisational depth to Tamil Nadu, pushing back its Sangam era by three K. Amarnath Ramakrishna, who led the early phases of excavation, has rejected the ASI's demand, stating that he stands by his 982-page report. His conclusions, he says, were based on unimpeachable scientific methods like stratigraphy and accelerator mass spectrometry. The state of the art in radiocarbon dating, the latter method has a precision of 40 years for recent antiquity. A MATTER OF TIMETo be sure, Keezhadi still awaits full scholarly consensus, specifically on whether the prime evidence for antiquity—potsherds with early Tamil inscriptions—are coeval with the carbon-dated charcoal layers. Also, whether its ceramic style accords with ancient Tamil Nadu's pottery chronology. But the ASI's May 2025 letter doesn't just seek corroboration. It calls for 'necessary corrections' and insists the earliest layer not be dated before 300 BC. Ramakrishna isn't the only one who spies a prejudicial edge in the ASI adopting such an approach to 'well-reasoned findings'. For many in the South, it's part of a broader pattern—one where 'science is subordinated to ideology, and archaeological evidence inconvenient to the dominant historical narrative is sidelined'.advertisement Keezhadi offers signs of a literate, urban Tamil civilisation along the Vaigai river dating back over 2,600 years. Nearby sites like Agaram and Konthagai buttress that idea, with some lines of inquiry even suggesting possible evolutionary links of early Tamil-Brahmi to the Indus script. The trouble this runs into, of course, is that it challenges the Centre's Vedic-centred view of antiquity. Hence, the ASI missive is seen by many experts less as pure academic scrutiny, more as a formal curb on the kind of story Keezhadi can tell. If fully unfurled, that narrative can subvert the privileged space conferred on the Vedic/Sanskritic lineage, suggesting a parallel civilisational track in the South—with its own language, script and cultural norms. A putative continuum with Harappa would deepen that as Keezhadi's findings were gaining national and international attention, Ramakrishna was abruptly transferred from Tamil Nadu to Assam in 2017 and ASI-led excavations slowed, later declaring no significant discoveries. In response, the state archaeology department took over Keezhadi work. Over time, that unearthed over 7,500 artefacts that buttressed Ramakrishna's hasn't been enough, it seems, to persuade New Delhi. 'The ASI has never been eager to acknowledge Keezhadi's truths,' says CPI(M) MP and writer S. Venkatesan, who has written extensively on Keezhadi. 'The BJP pushes mythology as history, but it works just as hard to erase our real past. But Tamil antiquity cannot be erased by government order.'BJP leader Tamilisai Soundararajan counters that the Centre had funded the initial excavation. 'The report was likely returned for administrative reasons, perhaps to avoid future questions,' she says. In response, Venkatesan asks: 'Why did you stop funding? If an excavation yields nothing, you may stop. But Keezhadi yielded everything. You stopped because what was discovered unsettled the very history you have been narrating.'Subscribe to India Today Magazine
The Hindu
02-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Civilisation and its discontents
Civilisation and culture are deeply entwined in the identity of any society and attempts to reinterpret or regulate them often invite political consequences. Over the past fortnight, this became clear when political parties in Tamil Nadu put up a resistance on two fronts — one regarding the State's ancient civilisation and the other, its financial practices. In the first instance, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) asked archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna to revise his 982-page report on the Keeladi excavations. Mr. Ramakrishna, who unearthed the ancient urban settlement near Madurai nearly a decade ago, had submitted the report in January 2023. The report pointed to a flourishing civilisation dating back to the Sangam era — suggesting a parallel, if not earlier, timeline to the Vedic civilisation. The ASI said the request for corrections was based on inputs from two independent experts and aimed to enhance the report's authenticity. However, the timing and nature of the move rekindled long-standing political suspicions in Tamil Nadu that the Centre was seeking to downplay the antiquity of Tamil civilisation. Mr. Ramakrishna declined to revise his report, asserting that his findings were backed by detailed documentation. The ruling DMK and its allies — notably, the CPI(M) and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi — condemned the ASI's request. They accused the Centre of attempting to suppress evidence that might challenge the primacy of Vedic civilisation in India's historical narrative. Historian and former IAS officer, R. Balakrishnan, author of Journey of a Civilisation: Indus to Vaigai, described the ASI's demand as arising from 'the pressure of history'. He cautioned against historical bias in a multicultural nation such as India, stressing the need for responsible scholarship. In response to the criticism, the Union Ministry of Culture, through the ASI, issued a clarification, calling the allegations 'misleading' and 'contrary to the truth.' It insisted that the vetting process was standard and devoid of bias. Still, given that previously, Central funding and excavations were halted midway, forcing the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology to step in, the issue remains politically charged. The second controversy involved the Reserve Bank of India's Draft (Lending against Gold Collateral) Directions, 2025. Among the proposed measures were a 75% cap on loan-to-value ratio, proof of ownership for pledged gold, and limits on the quantity of gold that can be pledged — 1kg for ornaments and 50 gm for coins per borrower. These proposed restrictions struck at the heart of Tamil Nadu's financial culture, where gold loans play a primary and critical role, especially for women, farmers, small traders, and rural communities. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, in a letter to Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, described gold as not just an ornament but a vital financial safeguard for households. He warned that the new regulations would drive vulnerable borrowers into the hands of predatory lenders and exploitative loan apps. State Finance Minister Thangam Thennarasu called the draft guidelines 'deeply insensitive' and accused the RBI of perpetuating 'systemic injustice' against economically weaker sections. Even allies and supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party, including the AIADMK, Pattali Makkal Katchi, Tamil Maanila Congress, and Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, opposed the RBI's move. AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami argued that the new rules would hurt the poor and middle class, who comprise the bulk of India's population. Recognising the political ramifications, the Union Finance Ministry intervened. It suggested exempting small-ticket borrowers — those seeking loans below ₹2 lakh — from the stringent norms to ensure their continued access to timely credit. In both the Keeladi excavation dispute and the proposed gold loan regulations, Tamil Nadu's assertive response forced the Centre to respond. These episodes underscore how deeply issues of civilisation and financial practice resonate in the State — and how political sensitivity to these dimensions can quickly escalate into broader controversies. By stepping in, the Centre may have averted a volatile flash point, at least with regard to the gold loan regulations, in the run-up to next year's Assembly elections.
