Context

Archaeology, as a scientific discipline, seeks to reconstruct history through the careful study of material remains and objective analysis. However, in India, archaeology has frequently become a battleground where political agendas influence historical narratives just as much as empirical evidence does. The recent controversies involving the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Keeladi excavations exemplify this tension. These events expose the ongoing conflict between scientific rigor and political pressures, while also highlighting the institutional challenges that undermine the ASI’s credibility and scholarly integrity.

The Keeladi Excavations: Challenging Established Historical Narratives

·       The Keeladi excavations, which began in Tamil Nadu in 2014, rapidly gained attention as one of India’s most important archaeological ventures. Early phases of the excavation yielded over 7,500 artefacts that suggested the presence of a literate, urban, and secular society in South India during the Early Historic Period. These findings posed a significant challenge to the dominant narrative that India’s second urbanisation was confined largely to the Gangetic plains, potentially bridging a historical gap between the Iron Age (12th–6th century BCE) and the Early Historic period (6th–4th century BCE).

·       However, the project’s progress was disrupted in 2017 when the lead archaeologist, K. Amarnath Ramakrishna, was abruptly transferred, and the ASI dismissed the site’s importance while halting further excavations. This move sparked widespread suspicion that political considerations, rather than scientific ones, were driving institutional decisions. The controversy led to both academic criticism and political confrontations between the Tamil Nadu state and the Union government.

·       Eventually, the Madras High Court intervened, transferring responsibility for the project to the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology. This department expanded the scope of excavation, uncovering over 18,000 artefacts. The Keeladi case highlights a fundamental issue: archaeology in India is not only about uncovering history but also about deciding which versions of the past gain official recognition. By downplaying Keeladi’s evidence regarding Dravidian antiquity, the ASI demonstrated how state institutions can suppress alternative historical narratives, even when supported by rigorous scientific methods such as stratigraphic sequencing and Accelerator Mass Spectrometry dating.

Challenges Confronting the ASI

·       One key challenge is methodological inconsistency and selective rigor. While the Union government claims that isolated findings should not prompt drastic historical revisions without extensive corroboration, the ASI’s own record is inconsistent. For example, the rediscovery of Iron Age artefacts at Adichanallur in Tamil Nadu in 2004 was ignored for over 15 years despite evidence of a civilisation dating back 3,000 years, requiring judicial intervention to prompt publication.

·       This selective application of caution reveals an underlying bias where scientific rigor is often secondary to political or ideological priorities. Findings that disrupt dominant narratives, like those from Keeladi pointing to Dravidian urbanism, are dismissed as inconclusive. Conversely, sites supporting nationalist or mytho-historical views are promoted readily. Such double standards erode the ASI’s credibility and illustrate what scholars term methodological nationalism—an approach privileging a singular, state-approved interpretation of India’s history.

·       Institutional and structural weaknesses further hinder the ASI. Critics such as Avikunthak, Verma, Menon, and Chakrabarti have noted the agency’s arbitrary personnel policies, reliance on outdated methods like the Wheeler system, and absence of a coherent research framework. These deficiencies result in fragmented and poorly contextualized data rather than comprehensive historical narratives.

·       The ASI’s insularity is another major concern. Unlike institutions such as Germany’s Deutsches Archäologisches Institut or France’s Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives, the ASI rarely publishes its findings in peer-reviewed international journals. Instead, its research is circulated internally via monographs and bulletins, limiting academic scrutiny and global engagement. This lack of transparency fosters distrust, stifles debate, and curtails India’s contributions to international archaeological scholarship.

The Way Forward: Reforming the ASI

·       To restore its credibility, the ASI requires comprehensive reform. Structural changes must reduce bureaucratic interference, granting the agency financial and intellectual independence. Modern excavation techniques should replace outdated methodologies, coupled with stringent peer review and increased international collaboration.

·       Transparency should become a priority by ensuring that research findings are widely published and open to global scholarly assessment. Additionally, Indian archaeology must embrace a pluralistic epistemology, acknowledging the diversity and complexity of the subcontinent’s past rather than enforcing a monolithic national narrative.

Conclusion

The controversies surrounding the ASI and the Keeladi excavations reflect broader tensions within Indian archaeology. Without a shift toward openness, rigor, and inclusivity, the ASI risks further damaging its legitimacy as the guardian of India’s archaeological heritage. The stakes extend beyond individual sites; the very possibility of reconstructing India’s multifaceted past depends on an institution that values scientific integrity over political expediency.