Critical analysis of the work of Srinivasan Kalyanaraman

Srinivasan Kalyanaraman is a retired bank official based in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, who has spent a considerable amount of time deciphering the Indian script. He has written nearly 3000 articles on this issue. That means, on average, one article for every day for the past 10 years. What is the use? No use at all. The most amusing aspect is that the Governor of Tamil Nadu recently awarded this person a lifetime achievement award in February 2025. What is his achievement, total deception and confusion?

What are the ideas of Kalyanaraman on this issue of Indus script

Srinivasan Kalyanaraman’s approach to deciphering the Indus script involves comparing Indus signs with various Dravidian languages of South India, including the Munda, Kol, and Santali languages. He is suggesting a connection to Proto-Dravidian or Tamil.

Another important aspect of his decipherment work is that he advocates a ‘cypher’ approach to deciphering the Indus script. The cypher revolves around an imaginary guild of metal smiths and traders in Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. These goldsmiths and ironsmiths communicate in coded words among themselves and send messages in encrypted form. Is there any need for an encrypted message for communication regarding the iron trade among blacksmiths? What I find today is that the blacksmiths are the poorest people in society and total illiterates and live like gypsies in Tamil Nadu. I doubt. How many blacksmiths were among the most elite people of the Indus society?

What is the cypher approach?

Now, we should go into the work of another cryptographer in this context. He is Yajnadevam from Karnataka, and at present, he is based in the USA. (1) The title of his research paper is “A Cryptanalytic Decipherment of the Indus Script,” which was published on Academia.edu in 2024. This work created a significant impact on the television audience but yielded no concrete results.

I have analysed Yajna Devam’s paper and provided a detailed examination of various issues in my paper, titled “Deficiencies in the Research Work of Yajnadevam on Deciphering the Indus Script.” (2) For more information, please read this article. The relevance of quoting the research work of Yajna Devam lies in the fact that both utilise the crypto-analytic approach model to decipher the Indus script, and there are many similarities in their research work.

Cryptography is the practice of securing communication by converting plain text into ciphertext, ensuring that only authorised parties can access the information—key Principles of Cryptography. Cryptography provides confidentiality: Information can only be accessed by the intended recipient and no one else. Cryptography guarantees that information cannot be altered during storage or transmission without detection. Cryptography protects data and communications by converting plain text into ciphertext using various techniques. Generally, it was referred to as ‘encryption’ in earlier times, but in modern times, it is more commonly known as cryptography. Cryptography became important during World War II; messages were sent and received back in encrypted messages. Separate machines were used to convert the regular message into an encrypted message, and other machines were used to de-encrypt the message. Breaking the codes of German messages was a significant challenge, and Britain and the United States reasonably succeeded in that effort.

But what is the use of such sophisticated cypher communications among blacksmiths? There is no need for such secure communication and absolutely no need for cyphers. What is needed is only common sense. The only advantage to Kalyanaraman is that everyone is keeping quiet, unsure of what to say.

Dictionary approach

I verified the academic credentials of Kalyanaraman. He is well-versed in many Indian languages and has written a lexicon of Indian languages; this information is from amazon.com. But I could not find his lexicon anywhere on the net. However, all his research papers are simply pages from his lexicon. He is testing all words in his lexicon against the Indus script, and none of his observations tally with the Indus inscriptions. Yet, he had written around 3000 articles on this issue.

What is the Indus script?

Now, we should understand the mind of the Indus priest who had created these seals. He was a funeral priest, just like the modern Hindu priests involved in funeral rights. One thing you should understand is that there are separate priests for funeral ceremonies and separate for marriage and other ceremonies. Generally, funeral priests don’t get much remuneration. It is a less-paying job. However, in ancient times, it might have been different; funeral priests might have received reasonable benefits because they regularly performed animal sacrifices.

The Indus priest was a simple individual who made a living through funeral rights, not a cryptographer. He had to write something reasonable to him and at the same time readable to another priest so that there was some value in the seal produced. The seal likely served as a talisman, possessing magical power while also being readable. If you apply cryptography, it would have been unreadable without the aid of a computer. In conclusion, it was simply a logogram, not a cryptogram.

Cryptography and logograms

Will the cryptography work on logographic symbols? Yes, cryptography can be applied to logographic scripts, such as Chinese. However, the complexity of logographic scripts may present unique challenges regarding encryption and decryption processes, affecting factors such as key size and readability. It’s essential to consider these aspects when implementing cryptography in such languages. Using cryptography in logograms is a complex process; it is even more difficult in the Indus script because it is an ideogram, not merely a logogram. The conclusion is that it is impossible to use cryptography in Indus ideograms.

Relevance of context

When interpreting archaeological evidence, it is essential to consider the object in its original context. For example, people are trying to decipher the Indus script based on the assumption that it was a metropolis of ancient times, whereas, in reality, those excavated sites were necropolises. That is why archaeologists and linguists have failed in their efforts in the past century. I observed that those Indus sites were necropolises, and I interpreted them based on that assumption, which has given good results. (3) Whereas Kalyanaraman does not give any importance to the context of the Indus seal finds. He merely introduces the idea of the blacksmith guild without explaining any of the relevant issues related to archaeological finds and their location.

I am surprised by his power of imagination; Indus seals depict a wide range of animals, gods, and other objects in a lively form. Yet Kalyanaraman does not explain any of these apparent objects.

Problem of linguists

The problem of Kalyanaraman is similar to that of the other linguists involved in the Indus script decipherment work. Linguists often live in an imaginary world and make bold assertions, whereas historians and archaeologists tend to avoid such extreme conclusions. Archaeologists are grounded in reality, whereas linguists are free-flying birds with a novelistic approach to historical issues. Note that many decipherers engaged in this work are linguists, not historians or archaeologists. There were nearly 100 decipherers, and all of them failed; Kalyanaraman also joined that long list. For more details, read my article, “Deficiencies in the Research Work of Yajnadevam on Deciphering the Indus Script” (2). The research work of Kalyanaraman and Yajnadevam is similar. The only difference is that Yajnadevam has built his story around Rigveda, whereas Kalyanaraman has built his story around the blacksmith guild. The end is the same; neither explains the situation.

Logogram vs logo syllabic interpretation.

There is a fundamental flaw in Kalyanaraman’s work. Indus scripts are written ideographically, as stated by Iravatham Mahadevan, a claim supported by the work of Bahata Ansumali. (4) However, Kalyanaraman simply dismisses the work of Mahadevan and does not comment on the work of Bahata. Kalyanaraman ignores their work and employs a logo-syllabic interpretation of Indus symbols—the same logo-syllabic interpretation used by many decipherers, which has failed to yield any results.

The cryptogram theory applies only to phonetic scripts; it does not apply to pictorial scripts, such as the hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt. The Indus script is an ideogram, similar to Egyptian hieroglyphics, and cryptography is not suitable for pictorial scripts.

Suggestion to Kalyanaraman

Kalyanaraman has produced nearly 3,000 articles on the issue of the Indus script; all these papers are available on the academia.edu website. The majority of these articles are merely pages extracted from his Indian lexicon work. The articles are without head and tail and narration. He is compelled to write an article once every three days. I suggest he use artificial intelligence (AI) for the large-scale production of articles. AI provides decent articles. It is essentially garbage in and garbage out of a computer. However, it is still better than a page from a dictionary.

Conclusion

Kalyanaraman’s ideas seem novel, but it’s essential to note that they are not widely accepted within the mainstream archaeological and linguistic communities. Ongoing debate and further research are needed to find a solution to this indus script puzzle.

References

1. Yajnadevam. Academia.edu. [Online] 2024. https://www.academia.edu/78867798/A cryptanalytic decipherment of the Indus Script..

2. jeyakumar(Yajnadevam). Deficiencies in the research work of Yajnadevam on deciphering Indus script. https://www.academia.edu. [Online] 2025. https://www.academia.edu/127785902/Deficiencies in the research work of Yajnadevam on deciphering Indus script.