Civilisation and its discontents

Archaeological excavations in progress at Keeladi in Tamil Nadu’s Sivaganga district. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

Civilisation and culture are deeply entwined in the identity of any society and attempts to reinterpret or regulate them often invite political consequences. Over the past fortnight, this became clear when political parties in Tamil Nadu put up a resistance on two fronts — one regarding the State’s ancient civilisation and the other, its financial practices.

In the first instance, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) asked archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna to revise his 982-page report on the Keeladi excavations. Mr. Ramakrishna, who unearthed the ancient urban settlement near Madurai nearly a decade ago, had submitted the report in January 2023. The report pointed to a flourishing civilisation dating back to the Sangam era — suggesting a parallel, if not earlier, timeline to the Vedic civilisation.

The ASI said the request for corrections was based on inputs from two independent experts and aimed to enhance the report’s authenticity. However, the timing and nature of the move rekindled long-standing political suspicions in Tamil Nadu that the Centre was seeking to downplay the antiquity of Tamil civilisation. Mr. Ramakrishna declined to revise his report, asserting that his findings were backed by detailed documentation.

The ruling DMK and its allies — notably, the CPI(M) and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi — condemned the ASI’s request. They accused the Centre of attempting to suppress evidence that might challenge the primacy of Vedic civilisation in India’s historical narrative. Historian and former IAS officer, R. Balakrishnan, author of Journey of a Civilisation: Indus to Vaigai, described the ASI’s demand as arising from “the pressure of history”. He cautioned against historical bias in a multicultural nation such as India, stressing the need for responsible scholarship.

In response to the criticism, the Union Ministry of Culture, through the ASI, issued a clarification, calling the allegations “misleading” and “contrary to the truth.” It insisted that the vetting process was standard and devoid of bias. Still, given that previously, Central funding and excavations were halted midway, forcing the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology to step in, the issue remains politically charged.

The second controversy involved the Reserve Bank of India’s Draft (Lending against Gold Collateral) Directions, 2025. Among the proposed measures were a 75% cap on loan-to-value ratio, proof of ownership for pledged gold, and limits on the quantity of gold that can be pledged — 1kg for ornaments and 50 gm for coins per borrower.

These proposed restrictions struck at the heart of Tamil Nadu’s financial culture, where gold loans play a primary and critical role, especially for women, farmers, small traders, and rural communities. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, in a letter to Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, described gold as not just an ornament but a vital financial safeguard for households. He warned that the new regulations would drive vulnerable borrowers into the hands of predatory lenders and exploitative loan apps. State Finance Minister Thangam Thennarasu called the draft guidelines “deeply insensitive” and accused the RBI of perpetuating “systemic injustice” against economically weaker sections.

Even allies and supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party, including the AIADMK, Pattali Makkal Katchi, Tamil Maanila Congress, and Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, opposed the RBI’s move. AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami argued that the new rules would hurt the poor and middle class, who comprise the bulk of India’s population.

Recognising the political ramifications, the Union Finance Ministry intervened. It suggested exempting small-ticket borrowers — those seeking loans below ₹2 lakh — from the stringent norms to ensure their continued access to timely credit.

In both the Keeladi excavation dispute and the proposed gold loan regulations, Tamil Nadu’s assertive response forced the Centre to respond. These episodes underscore how deeply issues of civilisation and financial practice resonate in the State — and how political sensitivity to these dimensions can quickly escalate into broader controversies. By stepping in, the Centre may have averted a volatile flash point, at least with regard to the gold loan regulations, in the run-up to next year’s Assembly elections.