Keeladi can be delayed but not erased from memory: Indologist Balakrishnan

Renowned Indologist R Balakrishnan has accused the ASI of holding an institutional bias for delaying the publication of Tamil Nadu’s Keeladi excavation report, while promoting and allotting funds for excavations in Rajasthan’s Bahaj for the mythical Saraswati River.

Balakrishnan spoke to The Federal on why the publication of the Keeladi excavation report is necessary now. “Keeladi can, at best, be delayed, postponed, but it cannot be removed from our collective memory,” he said.

Pointing out that the ASI funds all its projects using taxpayers’ money, he said it should give equal importance to all excavations, rather than adopting a “my way or the highway” approach to delay certain reports like Keeladi. He told The Federal that while scores of young Indians are eager to learn about and celebrate Keeladi, the ASI remaining silent is abnormal.

Also read: What’s delaying Keeladi report? ASI spokesperson responds to allegations

Edited excerpts from the interview:

Critics argue that the Keeladi excavation report has been politicized by the Tamil Nadu government ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections. What’s your opinion? Do you think the DMK government is highlighting the issue for electoral gains?

The criticism against the Keeladi report and the stand taken by the Tamil Nadu government is fundamentally biased. Critics cannot claim ignorance of the fact that politics and culture are inseparable and how that combination works in real life. The reconstruction of the past is profoundly shaped by contemporary political needs, as history is often used as a convenient tool to serve present-day agendas. This is, by and large, a global phenomenon. Which aspects of the past are emphasised or celebrated, and which are neglected or erased, are often dictated by current politics.

I recall Eric Hobsbawm stating that traditions that appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin—sometimes invented to serve the interests of those who control the present. Whenever I think of the money and energy poured into reinventing the Vedic Saraswati River, the attempts to downplay the urban climax and maritime achievements of the Harappan people, and their linguistic affiliations, alongside the archaeological apathy toward sites like Keeladi and Sivagalai, the above statement comes to mind.

The power to impose a selective vision of the past is a form of symbolic capital, as Pierre Bourdieu pointed out, used to legitimise a specific social order. Such a vision is bound to be coloured an exercise in elitism.

Hence, I am not surprised by the criticism that the Keeladi controversy is aimed at electoral gains. It is better to look in the mirror before voicing such criticisms. We can’t have one yardstick for a paleo-channel and its link to the Sarasvati River and the Rig Veda, and another yardstick for the Vaigai River, Keeladi, and their association with Sangam Tamil texts.

Also read: ‘Keeladi a blow to BJP narrative’: Karti Chidambaram on history, politics, urban India

How have the Keeladi findings intensified the debate around Tamil heritage on global platforms? Though the report is yet to be published, how has it gained academic attention globally?

Keeladi has attracted national and global attention, and rightly so. When people in high places credit Rishi Bharadwaj with inventing the aeroplane, and when an IIT director blames meat-eating for landslides, why should anyone hesitate to stand for the evidence-based past that Keeladi seeks to articulate?

I’m sure that at the end of the day, truth will prevail. Keeladi can at best be delayed or postponed but it cannot be erased from our collective memory. It is better to pay attention to Keeladi and listen to what it is trying to say. That is good for everyone—for our past, present, and future. India’s foundations are plural in nature, and no exclusive narrative can explain the wonder that was India.

ASI archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna, who led the first two phases of the Keeladi excavations, says the corrections suggested by the ASI are invalid. He claims that changing his report now would amount to a crime.

He is right. He is a professional archaeologist. He submitted an official report on his excavations at Keeladi, which has been questioned by the ASI — the very institution to which he belongs. Amarnath has stood his ground, stating that his report requires no corrections because he followed all established norms of archaeology, and the report is based on scientific evidence.

According to Amarnath, as I read in the media, any correction made at this stage, based on external opinions, would amount to a crime. I take this as an expression of his professional integrity. And he is entitled to it.

Given these circumstances, I believe the ASI should publish the entire report, along with its own observations and Amarnath’s responses. Let the academic world read it and form its own conclusions. After all, transparency matters.

Also read: Is ASI wary of Keeladi? Interview with journalist Peer Mohammed

Now the ASI has asked retired archaeologist Sriraman, who led the third phase of the excavation, to prepare the report, eight years after the dig. Though he earlier said there were no significant findings in that trench, Amarnath claimed Keeladi was a potential Sangam Age site. What is your view on the ASI’s decision to publish the third-phase report while withholding the first two?

Archaeologist Sriraman succeeded Amarnath at Keeladi and conducted the third season of excavations. The impression he left at the end of that session is still in public memory. It’s there in the public domain.

Now, eight years later, he has been “granted permission” to write his report. That’s fine. We need not speculate what he will say; let’s wait and see. But people viewing this development negatively is inevitable. For that, I hold the ASI’s past conduct responsible.

I’ve seen the official spokesperson of the ASI claim that every rupee spent on excavations and reports is ASI money, but that’s not a convincing answer. It is, after all, taxpayers’ money.

Granting Sriraman permission to write the third-season report only strengthens the need to publish the first and second season reports. It cannot be a “my way or the highway” scenario. To put it in a nutshell, I am waiting to read Amarnath’s report first and Sriraman’s next.

Also read: After Keeladi, why Tamil Nadu wants to excavate Nagapattinam site

How significant are the dates given by Amarnath in his report, particularly regarding the Sangam period?

The timelines suggested by Amarnath’s report and by the Tamil Nadu Department of Archaeology are significant in many ways in the context of the Sangam Age and the socio-economic life described in classical Tamil texts generally known as Sangam Literature.

1. They help establish the chronology of the writing system in India.

2. They point to a spread of literacy at the grassroots level.

3. They provide archaeological evidence for various economic activities, such as yarn-making, textiles, value addition, ornament and gemstone processing.

4. They support the accounts of internal and external trade activities described in Sangam texts.

5. They reveal a pragmatic way of life, where religion did not occupy a central place.

And there’s much more. I’ve only touched upon a few aspects. The importance of the Keeladi report in establishing the Sangam period is very clear. The publication of the report, as prepared by Amarnath Ramakrishna, would be a major step towards unlearning history that lacks evidence.