Keeladi, Indus Valley sites show no evidence of organised religion: Indologist R Balakrishnan

I would rather comment on ASI’s documented response and its implications. Let me make one thing clear – this is a kind of “technical dialogue” between a 150-year-old institution of repute, responsible for archaeological surveys in India and a qualified archaeologist, who belongs to the same organisation, entrusted with the responsibility of excavations at Keeladi.

Also read: Keeladi findings: Where's evidence for 600-year gap, asks ASI's Nandini Sahu

ASI archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishnan led his team during the first two rounds of excavations at Keeladi (2014-2015 and 2015-2016). He submitted his preliminary report in November 2018, another interim report in February 2017 and the final report in January 2023.

After a gap of more than two years, ASI raised certain queries based on suggestions made by two experts who vetted his report and ASI asked him to make necessary corrections and resubmit his report. However, Amarnath defended his findings stating that his report was prepared following all established procedures and based on documentary evidence and hence, no further corrections were required. This is the position on record today.

In my research, I have been following an interdisciplinary approach which includes many aspects of archaeological data as well. I am not a professional archaeologist and it’s better if I refrain from making any subjective views on the final report, the ASI’s response and the excavator’s reply. However, as a researcher I like to demand the report be published with ASI giving their observations in the annexure for scholars to make their own conclusions.

Thousands of artefacts were found in Keeladi and some are displayed in Keeladi museum. None of the artefacts seem to show any connection to any religion or philosophy. What does this signify?

A large quantity of antiquities has been unearthed at Keeladi. Glass and terracotta beads lead the list of antiquities. Beads made of agate, quartz, plain and etched carnelian, beryl, garnet, sapphire, lapis lazuli, shell, ivory and pearl have been excavated. Spindle whorls, seals, shell bangles, seals, dice, toy cart wheels, gamesmen, ear studs, hopscotches, lamps, pendants, balls and terracotta figurines of humans and animals provide a good picture of socio-economic activities and the material culture of that time.

Also read: Stalin: BJP govt’s attempt to hide Keeladi findings shows hatred for Tamil pride

The Keeladi excavations threw more light about the life near ancient Madurai. The emergence of writing and its social, economic and political contexts; the transformation from graffiti to Tamili, considerable technological advancement in metallurgy, textile, bead making, iron tool making, use of copper, internal and external trade, specialisation in arts and crafts and so on. The surplus production in agriculture, growth of semi-urban and urban centres are evident. The contacts people had with the population of north and north-western India are clear as well.

The graffiti bearing and Tamili-inscribed potsherds with several personal names of individuals stand witness to the level and nature of literacy. In Keeladi, TNSDA has unearthed more than 2,000 graffiti-bearing and 172 Tamili inscribed potsherds.

But the excavators have not come across any significant evidence of religion being the dominant theme of the day-to-day life of the people. It does not mean that the people who lived there did not have any faith or belief system; but certainly, that was not the central theme. And let me tell you that I am not surprised about this.

The most ancient layers of Tamil ideology and worldview as evident from literary sources has been different to a vast extent from what happened subsequently. Gods and goddesses were part of the landscape in which people lived and there has been no concept of creator god and so on.

Also read: Keeladi excavation: Archaeologist Ramakrishna transferred, DMK MP criticises move

Apart from Vedic traditions, two of the ancient religions such as Jainism and Buddhism were born in northern India. The impact of these Gangetic religious ideologies and related rituals started influencing the people in Tamil lands. And, this is evident from certain works of Sangam corpus and early epics.

Notwithstanding this, Tamil society of the first millennium as evident from Keeladi and other places was more a pragmatic, materialistic and fun-loving society.

Ancestor worship was the core of Tamil ideology and this is evident from many hero stones found in Tamil land. A poem in Sangam corpus (Purananooru 335) even declares that there was no supreme god worshipped other than the respect and devotion shown to the heroes who gave their life to defend their land and clan from the aggressive enemies.

Material culture from the archaeology of Tamil land to a large extent stands witness to this. And, let me recall here that in the Indus Valley Civilization, as well, organised religion or worship was not the central theme. And, the people were busier with their economic and other activities.

ASI says there is a set process to be followed before publishing reports by excavators. Various subject experts must go through the report and vet it for publication. Alterations suggested by experts are to be carried out by excavators and resubmitted for publication. And the same process was followed in the Keeladi report. How do you view this?

Could be. ASI as an institution has to safeguard its responsibility and reputation. And similarly, a qualified, professional archaeologist has to protect his own academic integrity and because he was part of the excavation and has the knowledge of the site, and methods followed and so on.

In such a situation, it is legitimate to expect ASI to clarify the earlier occasions in which field archaeologists were asked to make corrections based on external observations; what types of corrections were demanded and how the archaeologists concerned responded to that and what were the final outcomes.

It will make things clearer and transparent and remove the misgivings, if any.

ASI claims close to 56 reports, similar to Keeladi, are pending publication. ASI’s request to resubmit with corrections is not questioned in other states but only in Tamil Nadu. What’s your thought on this?

If that is the case then it is not a happy scenario and ASI should do something urgently about it.

As the Keeladi report issue caught the public attention, I visited the ASI website to get more inputs on the overall scenario. I could not find any annual report of ASI's “Indian Archelogy: A Review” after 2013-2014. The annual report of 1862-63 represents the earliest formal documentation of ASI activities.

Also read: Keeladi excavations: ASI asks archaeologist Ramakrishna to resubmit his report

Under the leadership of Sir John Marshall as the DG of ASI, 1902-03 onwards, ASI reports became well-structured and regular. The Annual Report of the ASI was replaced by “Indian Archelogy: A Review” in the year 1953-54. Now, coming to the current scenario, the fact remains that Indian Archelogy: A Review, an annual publication has not been published for the last 10 years.

Others states not minding the delay cannot be an answer. Maybe, Tamil Nadu is more sensitive about its own past. Obviously, the level of awareness in Tamil Nadu is more in comparison; but that cannot be faulted.

Imagine, if someone had not sought judicial intervention, the Keeladi excavations could have ended after first three sessions in 2017 itself and we won’t be having the magnificent site museum. I recall the delay of more than 15 years in publishing the Adichanallur Excavation Report (excavation done by T Satyamurthy).

The report would not have seen the light of the day but for relentless courtroom efforts of R S Kamarasu, a writer with interest in history.

What was your experience of your visit to the Keeladi site for the first time? Did you not first see the site while writing your book related to the Indus Valley Civilisation. Can you recall your first visit to Keeladi?

I visited Keeladi in 2016 in June. I made this trip immediately after coming to know about certain artefacts found in Keeladi through a news item. The mention about the Harappan-type nature of some artefacts attracted me.

The reason is obvious. I had made a presentation in the World Classical Tamil Conference at Coimbatore in 2010 about my new findings of “KVT Complex” (Korkai-Vanji- Thondi Complex) that uses GIS tools to highlight the identical placename clusters that are common IVC geography, names documented in the ancient Tamil literary texts and current Tamil Nadu.

I presented the above data and maps in the presence of renowned Indus scholars Asko Parpola and Iravatham Mahadevan.

Less than two months before my first visit to Keeladi, my Tamil book which focuses on the probable Dravidian foundations of the Indus Valley Civilization had been published. Hence, the visit to Keeladi was something special and close to my heart. I am from Madurai and I studied there. I am a student of Tamil literature, I got into the IAS in 1984 and worked in Odisha and Delhi. Therefore, I was attached to my native place and wanted to learn about my people.

I met Amarnath and his team at Keeladi and they explained the nature of site, artefacts and answered my enthusiastic queries. I took a photograph with a black and redware pot in situ, which remained buried for more than 2,000 years in a deep layer and it was an overwhelming moment. As I listened to Amarnath and his team and saw the findings, I felt as if certain graphic descriptions in Sangam literature were unfolding, coming alive and “speaking”.

I have often stated that Sangam literature is yet to be dug up fully and the Sangam literary corpus is in a way, a Keeladi, yet to be read fully. I have travelled all over the country even to the deep interiors of the country, but I have never seen a place like Keeladi, where archaeology stands close to an ancient classical text. It was a ‘goosebumps’ moment.

The Tamil Nadu government carried out excavations in Keeladi after two phases were completed by ASI. How important is it for a state government to carry out such extensive research? It also requires funding and must serve a purpose. How does the Keeladi findings help further shape history of Tamil Nadu?

One has to understand the context and circumstances in which the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology got involved in the Keeladi excavations. It was in compliance with an order passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in a public interest litigation.

It not only changed Keeladi's profile but also pushed an otherwise low-key department into prominence. There is no point in expressing surprise about the public outcry regarding Keeladi report. This is because, the trigger for further excavations in Keeladi after the third phase was the result of public activism.

Why did the court get involved? After first two rounds of excavations in 2014-15 and 2015-16, Amarnath Ramakrishna was transferred to Assam and the archaeologist who succeeded him at Keeladi almost poured cold water on the enthusiasm created during the first two phases of excavations.

People viewed this with suspicion and following the lack of interest on ASI's part in further excavations at Keeladi, the responsibility fell on TNSDA through a court order. Imagine, if this didn’t happen? You won’t be having a magnificent site museum now at Keeladi, which is visited everyday by thousands of people.

History is important. It is essential to understand the challenges of present times and plan our future understanding of our collective past. No doubt history is a narrative. But evidence-based reconstruction of the past is any day better than the unverified claims and mythological story-based narratives.

Your book “Journey of a Civilization: Indus to Vaigai” articulates “Rainforest Pluralism” as a new and alternate metaphor to describe inclusive India. Can you explain?

Not only in my book, I have often stated in public domain that India’s pluralism is a Rain Forest Pluralism. The conventional and oft-repeated metaphor of Melting Pot is not convincing.

Melting Pot represents an alloy-making process in which many individual identities are lost. India is certainly not a melting pot. It is not an inclusive conversation. In certain advanced countries people today talk about “Salad Bowl” pluralism. I am not convinced about this either.

It is better than a ‘melting pot’ but not inclusive enough. It still enforces a graded superiority and a sort of selection process.

To me, India’s pluralism is a “Rain Forest Pluralism”. It is about being inclusive, it is about coexistence. In a way the core ideology of Tamils, “yatum ure yavarum kelir” meaning “Every town, our own home town and every man a kinsman” as articulated in Sangam text (Purananooru: 192) is rooted in this sense of rainforest pluralism and inclusiveness.