CHENNAI: In a fresh twist to the standoff between the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna over the release of the 982-page Keeladi excavation report, ASI director-general Yadubir Singh Rawat has written to Tamil Nadu MP D Ravikumar, saying that it has been decided that an internal committee will “re-examine the report on site”.While letters have been going back and forth, with ASI demanding “changes” in the report, Ramakrishna has insisted that the findings and conclusions drawn in the Keeladi excavation report should be treated as final. He said there was no need or reason to alter the report, much less substitute the chronology of the site. In his latest communication to ASI on May 11, Ramakrishna wrote that he was “duty bound to furnish true and correct report fairly without any external influences”.Meanwhile, in a fresh development, VCK MP Ravikumar, who had written to ASI on March 24, 2025, demanding the immediate publication of the Keeladi report without further delay, received a response on June 24. In his letter, ASI director-general Rawat said the excavation report covering work carried out during 2014-15 and 2015-16 had been vetted by two subject experts and examined by an internal committee of experts.“Certain deficiencies and shortcomings were identified in the report, which has been communicated to the excavator for necessary corrections to make the report publication worthy,” said Rawat. He added that the excavator “has not accepted” the suggestions. “Now, it has been decided that the Internal Committee will re-examine the said report on site,” said Rawat.When contacted, Rawat told TOI that the internal committee would deal with the matter. ASI’s five-member internal committee chairperson Nandini Bhattacharya Sahu said she had not yet received any official communication.Ramakrishna, who led the first two phases of the excavation during 2014-16, had reported findings pointing to an early urban Tamil civilisation dating to 800-500 BCE at Keeladi in Sivaganga district. After a “critical evaluation” by ASI described his Keeladi report as “ambiguous, incomplete and underdeveloped”, Ramakrishna replied on February 2 that the evaluation was “unprecedented” and appeared to be “a product of AI-assisted technology”.In his letter to ASI last year, Ravikumar said a case had been filed in the Madurai bench of Madras high court, seeking a direction to the Union government to publish the report. He noted that the government’s counsel had assured the court that the report would be released within nine months. Accepting this, the court, in its February 27, 2024 judgment, directed the Union government to publish the report within nine months.“The deadline lapsed in November 2024, yet the report remains unpublished,” said Ravikumar, adding that this amounted to contempt of court.
