The News Minute’s recent so-called “ground report” on the Keezhadi excavations is yet another example of a troubling trend in its reportage: the tendency to construct narratives on selective facts, half-truths, and speculative interpretations. While it seeks to pitch Keezhadi as a civilisational revelation distinct from mainstream Indian history, the video is riddled with contradictions, omissions, and ideological insinuations masquerading as archaeological analysis.
1. Misrepresenting The ASI’s Role And Scientific Procedure
One of the key claims made in the video is that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has asked the excavating officer to “revise” the report—an implication that hints at censorship or interference. This is factually incorrect. The ASI has merely requested that any extraordinary claims in the excavation report be backed with proper and verifiable evidence—especially with regard to carbon dating that purportedly places the site as early as the 6th century BCE. As of now, there is no conclusive carbon dating evidence from Keezhadi beyond the 3rd century BCE.
Is it not basic scientific rigour to demand that reports, especially on matters of national historical importance, be evidence-backed? Why should scientific clarifications trigger political outrage unless the goal is to avoid scrutiny altogether? Those who make sweeping claims must have the courage and intellectual honesty to back them with verifiable evidence, withstand scientific scrutiny, and accept when facts do not align with their ideological expectations.
2. Religious Structures And The ‘Secular Sangam’ Myth
The report claims there are “no religious structures” in Keezhadi, and proceeds to use that as a foundation to argue that Tamil civilisation was a secular civilization distinct from Vedic and deity-worship traditions.
How can such sweeping conclusions be drawn merely from viewing a few brick walls? Are we to expect Kanchipuram-style temples from 600 BCE? Religious architecture of the time would have been minimal and may not have survived the ravages of time. The real contradiction, however, lies in the simultaneous claim that Keezhadi belongs to the Sangam era—an era that is replete with religious and ritualistic references.
Take, for instance, the Pandiyan King Pal Yāgasālai MuduKudumi PeruVazhudhi of Sangam period, who is said to have performed a thousand Vedic yajnas as per Purananuru (verse 25):
“Performed per rules of the Four Vedas,
Pouring sacred ghee into the flaming altars…”
Karikala Chola was praised as the one who performed an Yajna using a Yajnakunda in the shape of a Kite (எருவை நுகர்ச்சி யூப நெடுந்தூண் வேத வேள்வித் தொழில்முடித் ததூஉம் ). There are kings named as Rajasuyam VEtta Perunarkilla indicating that he performed Rajasuya Yajna. Sangam texts like Purananuru, Agananuru, Kalithogai, Maduraikanchi mentions Gods like Shiva, Vishnu, Parvathi, Murugan, Krishna, Balarama among others – hardly signs of a deity-less, non-religious, non-ritualistic society.
If Keezhadi is Sangam-era, then dismissing its religious significance based solely on the absence of temples is either careless or ideologically motivated.
3. The False Binary Of Two Civilisations
The video posits the lack of religious symbols at Keezhadi as proof that the Tamil civilisation was somehow isolated from the rest of India. But consider this: less than 200 km away in Adichanallur—a site dated to an even earlier period—clear religious symbols have been excavated.
The site presents compelling archaeological evidence of early ritual practices closely aligned with Vedic and proto-Hindu traditions. The discovery of copper antennae swords, often associated with ceremonial rather than combat use, mirrors ritual objects found in early Vedic contexts. Similar swords have been found in other parts of India in contexts associated with Vedic rituals and Kshatriya warrior culture. The urn burials, containing human remains along with offerings like gold diadems, copper vessels, and carnelian beads, indicate a belief in the afterlife and structured funerary rites—core elements of Hindu thought. Terracotta figurines resembling human and animal forms likely served as votive offerings, reflecting the aniconic and symbolic nature of early Hindu worship. Additionally, the use of shell bangles and the systematic alignment of burial mounds suggest cosmological awareness and ritual orientation, both of which are integral to Hindu religious practice. Scholars such as K. Rajan and R. Nagaswamy have argued that these findings place Adichanallur within the cultural and ritual continuum of early Vedic society, challenging claims that ancient Tamil civilisation was separate from or devoid of Hindu religious influence.
Are we to assume two entirely distinct civilisations existed within this small geographical space? Or is it more reasonable to believe that Keezhadi’s deeper layers may yet reveal signs of worship?
Such premature conclusions do a disservice to the scientific process. Archaeology is cumulative. It demands patience, not ideological posturing.
4. On The Officer’s Transfer – A Red Herring
The video makes much ado about the so-called “abrupt” transfer of the excavation officer, Amarnath. But such transfers in the ASI are routine and occur every 2–3 years. In this case, one of the transfers was accompanied by a promotion. It is misleading to imply a conspiracy in what is an ordinary bureaucratic reshuffle.
Unless ofcourse your video script came straight from ‘PEN’.
5. The Harappan Comparison – An Inaccurate Stretch
The attempt to compare Keezhadi with the Harappan civilisation is not only inaccurate but borders on academic dishonesty. Harappan sites like Mohenjo-daro and Dholavira are known for their large urban planning, uniform seals (like the unicorn motif), Great Bath, script, and drainage systems—none of which have been found at Keezhadi.
Also, Harappan civilisation dates back to 2600–1500 BCE, while Keezhadi’s most ambitious estimates place it around 600 BCE. That’s a gap of a thousand years. The comparison is misleading and only serves to elevate Keezhadi into a civilisational symbol that it cannot yet bear.
6. Cultural Continuities Ignored
Interestingly, the excavation of carnelian beads—known to be manufactured in the Gujarat region—clearly points to trade and cultural connections between the Tamil region and northern India. Far from being a separate civilisational island, Keezhadi may well be part of the broader Indian civilisational continuum. But this aspect receives little attention in the video, perhaps because it doesn’t fit the desired narrative.
7. The Politics Of Supposed Silence
Finally, if the excavation report was truly robust and methodologically sound, why were clarifications to ASI queries not promptly provided? These were not political questions—they were scientific concerns. The politicisation of archaeology only emerges when evidence-based inquiry is stonewalled in favour of ideological storytelling.
Let the Spade Speak, Not the Spin
Keezhadi is undoubtedly a significant site in India’s archaeological landscape. But its true value will emerge not from media campaigns or selective reporting, but from rigorous science and peer-reviewed findings. Let archaeology remain in the realm of research—not rhetoric.
The News Minute’s report reflects a deeper problem: the temptation to project ideological biases onto scientific explorations. If we truly wish to honour Tamil heritage and Indian history, we must demand more evidence, less emotion—and most importantly, the integrity to let the truth emerge as it is, not as we wish it to be.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.