Political battle over Tamil Nadu history escalates, Stalin says truth about Keezhadi excavation ‘doesn't suit BJP-RSS script'

Indian Express

15 hours ago

Amid the row over the excavations in Tamil Nadu's Keezhadi, Chief Minister M K Stalin on Thursday called the Centre's demand for 'more proof' regarding the antiquity of the site an attempt to suppress scientifically established truths about Tamil civilisation.
'Even when confronted with carbon-dated artefacts and accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) reports from international laboratories on the Keezhadi excavations, they continue to demand more proof…,' Stalin said.
'On the contrary, despite strong opposition from respected historians and archaeologists, the BJP continues to promote the mythical Saraswati civilisation. They do so without credible evidence, while dismissing the rigorously proven antiquity of Tamil culture,' he alleged.
He said the BJP-RSS 'ecosystem recoils' when it comes to the Keezhadi and the 'enduring truth of Tamil heritage'.
'Not because evidence is lacking, but because the truth does not serve their script. We fought for centuries to unearth our history. They fight every day to erase it. The world is watching. So is time,' the Chief Minister said.
His remarks come days after Union Minister for Culture and Tourism Gajendra Singh Shekhawat reaffirmed the Centre's stance on the issue. Shekhawat, addressing questions on the Archaeological Survey of India's decision to return archaeologist K Amarnath Ramakrishna's 982-page report on Keezhadi, said: '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.'
'Let them come with more results, more data, more evidence, more proof. Only one finding cannot seize the discourse, because people are trying to increase 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,' he said.
When pressed about the BJP's alleged reluctance to accept Tamil antiquity, Shekhawat said, 'Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that Tamil Nadu is the most ancient language and that Tamil civilisation is thousands of years old. Let it be decided by the archaeologists based on the facts and technical things.'
Responding to this, Tamil Nadu Finance and Archaeology Minister Thangam Thennarasu had questioned the Centre's inconsistent approach.
'First, they said there was nothing in Keezhadi. Then the archaeologist excavating Keezhadi was transferred. Later, they refused to allocate funds for excavations at that site. Finally, they put the report on the back burner for two years. Now, they claim that the evidence is insufficient,' Thennarasu said.
Ramakrishna's abrupt transfer to Assam in 2017 halted ASI's direct involvement at the site. Excavations resumed only after the Madras High Court allowed the Tamil Nadu Department of Archaeology to take over, leading to the unearthing of more than 13,000 artefacts.
On Thursday, the DMK's students wing, led by secretary R Rajiv Gandhi, announced a major protest to be held in Madurai on June 18. The party wing condemned the 'anti-Tamil BJP regime' for 'refusing to accept the Keezhadi archaeological findings despite it being established scientifically'.
The Keeladi excavations have long been a lightning rod for political and academic discourse. Initiated in 2014 and led by archaeologist Ramakrishna under the ASI, the site revealed remnants of an advanced urban civilisation — brick structures, industrial furnaces, drainage systems, graffiti-marked pottery, and terracotta artefacts. Ramakrishna submitted his final report in January 2023, concluding that the site dated back to between the 8th and 3rd century BCE, based on stratigraphic analysis and AMS-dated artefacts.
However, more than two years later, in May 2025, the ASI's Exploration and Excavation division returned the report and asked Ramakrishna to revise it based on comments from two unnamed experts. The ASI's letter argued that the proposed dating was 'very early' and suggested the earliest period should be revised to 'at the maximum, somewhere in pre-300 BCE'. Ramakrishna, in a formal written reply, defended the scientific basis of his chronology and rejected the demand to rework the sequence.