“Who Owns Indian History? The Keeladi Controversy and the Fight for Tamil Identity”

The dispute between the Union government and the Tamil Nadu state government over the Keeladi archaeological site revolves around disagreements concerning the excavation findings, their scientific validation, and the management of archaeological reports — all of which have intensified political and cultural tensions.

Excavations at Keeladi, initially conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) under K. Amarnath Ramakrishna and subsequently by the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology (TNSDA), have uncovered over 20,000 artifacts, including Tamil-Brahmi inscribed potsherds, brick structures, and terracotta pipelines.

These discoveries suggest the existence of an advanced urban Tamil civilization dating back to approximately 580 BCE, thereby pushing the timeline of the Sangam era earlier than traditionally believed. Radiocarbon dating performed by Beta Analytic Lab in Miami and Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) analyses support these claims, with some artifacts dated to the 6th–8th century BCE.

Tamil Nadu leaders, including Chief Minister M.K. Stalin and Minister Thangam Thennarasu, maintain that these findings are scientifically robust and underscore the antiquity of Tamil heritage.

Conversely, Union Culture Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat has criticized the report submitted by archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna, describing it as “not technically well-supported” and calling for further scientific validation.

The ASI has questioned the dating and stratigraphic consistency of certain findings, suggesting that assertions of an 8th-century BCE civilization are premature and require more rigorous analysis.

Scholars such as Dr. Bishnupriya Basak of the University of Calcutta have expressed concerns regarding the dating of Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions to the 6th century BCE, particularly highlighting the lack of clarity on whether inscribed potsherds were excavated from the same stratigraphic layer as the dated samples. Dr. Basak emphasized the critical need for precise information on stratigraphic layers, periods, and absolute dates to substantiate claims about the antiquity of the Tamil-Brahmi script.

In response to the ASI’s request to revise his comprehensive 982-page excavation report, Ramakrishna firmly defended the integrity of his findings and refused to rewrite the document, asserting that the chronology was established through standard archaeological methodologies — including stratigraphic sequencing, cultural deposits, material culture analysis, and AMS dating. He acknowledged minor procedural updates, such as adding missing layer numbering if necessary, and clarified that all visual data had been submitted in high-resolution formats. Ramakrishna viewed the ASI’s demands as redundant and unnecessary, reinforcing that the report’s conclusions about Keeladi’s dating to the 8th–5th century BCE were scientifically sound.

The controversy deepened following Ramakrishna’s transfers: initially moved to Assam in 2017 after the second excavation phase, then back to Tamil Nadu in 2021, and again to Noida in 2025 immediately after his refusal to revise the report.

These transfers have been widely perceived in Tamil Nadu as deliberate attempts by the Union government to obstruct recognition of Keeladi’s significance. The Union government maintains that these transfers were routine administrative actions and replaced Ramakrishna with P.S. Sriraman, who led the third phase of excavations but reported no significant findings — a conclusion viewed by many in Tamil Nadu as an attempt to downplay the site’s importance.

The 982-page report submitted by Ramakrishna in January 2023 remains unpublished as of mid-2025, with the ASI requesting revisions to enhance authenticity, particularly concerning pre-300 BCE datings.

Ramakrishna’s refusal to amend the report has resulted in a standoff. Tamil Nadu leaders, including DMK MP Dr. Kalanithi Veerasamy, have criticized the delay, referencing a 2024 Madurai High Court directive mandating the Centre to release the report within three months. The delay is widely interpreted as an effort to obscure evidence of Tamil civilization’s antiquity.

Additionally, the Union government delayed funding for the third excavation phase in 2017, citing late report submissions, which hindered progress. The ASI’s decision to halt excavations after the third phase, citing “no significant findings,” provoked public outcry and led to a Public Interest Litigation in the Madras High Court. Consequently, the TNSDA took over from the fourth phase onward and has since uncovered significant artifacts.

Tamil Nadu Minister Thennarasu has accused the Union government of dismissing Keeladi’s discoveries, refusing funds, and neglecting reports — suggesting a pattern of disregard toward Tamil heritage. The Union government denies any intention to restrict excavations.

This dispute has escalated into a broader ideological conflict concerning cultural and political narratives. Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister M.K. Stalin frames Keeladi as evidence of a Dravidian civilization predating northern influences, directly challenging the BJP-RSS’s promotion of a Sanskrit-centric “Sarasvati Civilization.” The people of Tamil Nadu perceive the Centre’s actions as treating Tamils as “second-class citizens” and resisting evidence that elevates Tamil heritage. Political parties such as the DMK, MDMK, and CPI(M), along with historians like R. Balakrishnan, have condemned the ASI’s interventions as attempts to undermine Tamil identity.

In summary, the Keeladi controversy is a complex interplay of scientific, administrative, and political disputes, primarily involving the ASI under the Union government’s control. Tamil Nadu regards the site as proof of an ancient, advanced Tamil civilization and accuses the Union government of suppressing this narrative through delays, transfers, and demands for further validation. The Union government’s insistence on rigorous scientific scrutiny, denial of suppression, and calls for cooperation to establish credible historical narratives lack credibility in the eyes of many stakeholders.

It is incumbent upon the Union government to resolve these issues and foster a cordial environment that ends the ongoing debate, which reflects broader tensions over regional identity, national unity, and the interpretation of India’s ancient history — without leveraging Keeladi to advance cultural or political agendas.

-San Arul Prakasam