See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259151729

Indian Shield

Article  in  Indian Minerals · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 4,615

1 author:

Ashit Baran Roy

84 PUBLICATIONS   1,785 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geology of Indian Shield, a book writing project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashit Baran Roy on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Indian Journal of Geosciences, Volume 66, No. 4
October - December, 2012; pp. 181-192

Indian Shield: Insight into the pristine size, shape and tectonic framework

A. B. Roy

Department of Geology, Presidency University, Kolkata – 700073, India

E-mail: ashitbaranroy@gmail.com

Abstract: Indian Shield which receives wide reference in literature occupied much wider area than the exposed Precambrian terrane
of Peninsular India prior to its decimation during successive Phanerozoic events that started with the Jurassic break-up of Gondwanaland.
Relying on the information from the Peninsular India, it is possible to trace out not only the history of destruction, but also the clue
to divide this Precambrian crustal block into two major tectonic blocks: Precambrian continental core or Proto-India, and the accreted
charnockitic terranes. Proto-India, belonging to two major domains: Aravalli-Bundelkhand and the Gondwana, can be further sub-
divided into six smaller units which are described as the fundamental nuclei or Protocontinents. These are: (1) Dharwar, (2) Bastar,
(3) Singhbhum, (4) Rajmahal, (5) Bundelkhand and (6) Aravalli. The two accreted terranes which were added subsequently to the
Proto-India include the Eastern Ghats Belt and the Southern Granulite Belts. The combined Precambrian crustal blocks of Proto-India
and the accreted terranes constituted the Indian Shield. The Joins that separate or suture the Protocontinents as well as the ‘accreted’
terranes, are marked by different features, such as fault trace (as between the Aravalli and the Bundelkhand), thrust or ductile shear
zone (as between Eastern Ghats Belt and the Dharwar, Bastar and Singhbhum to its west, and between Dharwar and Southern Granulite
Belt), or Lineaments like Narmada-Son, Godavari or Mahanadi which follow coal-bearing Gondwana rift basins. It is suggested that
the invariable occurrence of Gondwana rift basins along some Joins resulted at the time of Gondwana break-up when there was an
abortive attempt to fragment the Indian Shield, resulting in the opening of intracratonic continental basins along pre-exiting weak
zones marked by Joins.
Keywords: Indian Shield, Greater India, Protocontinent, Phanerozoic reconstitution, Gondwana rift basin

Indian Shield: Definition and Spatial Extent
The term ‘Indian Shield’ very often finds place in literature
although several aspects of this Precambrian crustal block
continue to be ill defined or almost unknown. By definition,
a Shield is a large area of exposed Precambrian crystalline
(igneous and metamorphic) rocks that remained tectonically
stable over a considerable period of geological time. Ideally
the Shield rocks should not have an age younger that the
youngest Precambrian, barring the later ‘cover’ (i.e. younger
supracrustal units). The oldest rocks are generally older than
3.4 billion years as in other Shield areas in the world.
Precambrian Shield (Fig. 1), though neither its shape nor the
geophysical characters match with the best known Shield
areas like the Canadian or some other Shield areas of the world
(Mahadevan, 1994; Roy, 2004).
Even conceding that the shape criterion need not be a
necessary constraint in defining a Shield, the available geological
information suggests that the Precambrian terrane of Peninsular
India as we see today once constituted a part of much larger
crustal block that evolved as a Shield like the Canadian or
some other Shield areas of the world. The concept of ‘Greater
India’ in all possibility started emerging from such an
understanding about nine decades ago (Argand, 1924).

The triangular-shaped Peninsular India that lies south of The pristine size of this Precambrian crustal block is
the Indo-Gangetic Alluvial Plain is traditionally considered a difficult to ascertain because of the fact that a considerable part
182 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
Fig. 1. Peninsular India is all that is left of the Indian Shield.
of it in the north has undergone extensive reconstitution during
the ‘Continent-Continent’ collision that led to the evolution of
the Himalayas during the late Cenozoic time. Geological and
geophysical data from the Himalayas also provide evidence
that much of its edifice is made of components sliced off from
the Indian Shield (Qureshy, 1969; Qureshy and Surendra Kumar,
1992; Warsi and Molnar, 1977). The concept is ingrained in
the expression ‘Extra-Peninsular rocks’ used for all the ancient
‘Shield’ elements in this youngest mountain belt by the late
eighteenth-early nineteenth century geologists of the Geological
Survey of India (Medlicott and Blandford, 1879-81).
Several attempts have been made trying to reconstruct at
least partially the true spatial extent (or the size) of the Indian
Shield in its northern part. Though differ in detail, the central
strand in all these models is that the pristine Indian Precambrian
crustal block constituting the Indian Shield had an extension
varying between 500 and 950 km (Ali and Aitchison, 2008)
north of the Main Boundary Thrust (the southernmost base of
the Himalayas, Valdiya, 1998). These estimates are compatible
with some of the suggested geodynamic and geophysically-
derived models depicting the subducted Indian Lithosphere
beneath Tibet, as well as the estimates of the Himalayan shortening
(DeCelles et al., 2002; Dewey et al., 1989; Le Fort, 1975; Molnar
and Tapponnier, 1975; Searle et al., 1987; Virdi, 1987; Valdiya,
1984; Warsi and Molnar, 1977).
Apart from its reconstitution along the northern part, the
decimation of the pristine Indian Shield which was caused by
separation of Antarctica in southeast, and Madagascar and
Seychelles islands in the southwest during the late Phanerozoic
has also added further complications in reconstructing the
original dimension of the Indian Shield prior to its decimation
during the late Phanerozoic (Roy, 2004).
Several studies have been made suggesting Indo-Antarctic
connection based on the correlation of granulite belts of the
two regions (Yoshida et al., 1992; Sen et al., 1995; Sengupta
et al., 1999; Dasgupta and Sengupta, 2003; Bhadra et al., 2004;
Gupta et al., 2005; Kelly et al., 2002). Such a correlation
implies that the boundary of the Indian Shield does not end at
the eastern margin of the Eastern Ghats ‘Granulite’ belt but
extends far into East Antarctica. However, because of lack of
geological information, it is impossible even to guess what
could even vaguely be the actual eastern boundary of the
granulite belt in Antarctica (placing Antarctica against the
present-day India!).
Like the granulite belt of Eastern Ghats and its continuity
into the East Antarctica, the Southern Granulite belt along with
Sri Lanka and Madagascar formed a continuous Precambrian
terrane in the south and southwest of Peninsular India (Harris
et al., 1994; Jayananda and Peucat, 1996; Kröner, 1991;
Radhakrishna et al., 1994, 1999; Storey et al., 1995; Torsvik
et al., 2000; Valsangkar et al., 1981; Veeraswamy and Raval,
2004; Yoshida et al., 1992). This suggests the extension of
‘Greater Indian Shield’ much beyond the boundary of the
southern and southeastern Peninsular India.
Summarising, the Indian Shield which evolved as a
stabilised Precambrian crustal block covered a wider spatial
extent than that of the crustal block of Peninsular India (Fig.1).
However, it is not possible to specify the actual size or shape
of this Precambrian crustal block because of the successive
events of break-up and reconstitution that have taken place
during the entire period of Phanerozoic (Roy, 2003, 2004,
2006). The Peninsular India constitutes only a part of the
‘Greater Indian Shield’ which evolved during the Precambrian
and remained virtually undisturbed (by any orogenic event or
by thermal perturbation caused by Plume impingement) till
the initiation of its break-up in the Phanerozoic (Figs. 2A, B).
The truncation of the ‘Greater Indian Shield’ caused significant
changes in its geological and geophysical character which
make it rather unique Shield area in the world today.
 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192 183

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of decimation of size of Indian Shield

(A) Evolution of Himalaya through upthrusting of slices of the northern part of Precambrian Indian
Shield during the process of ‘continental collision’ (after Roy, 2010).
(B) Fragmentation of the northward-moving co-joined Precambrian crustal block constituted of India,
Antarctica and Madagascar during Plume outbursts. Possible position of Plumes, indicating the age
of outburst (Kg=Kerguelen, M=Marion, and Ru=Reunion) (after Veeraswamy and Raval, 2004).

Framework of Indian Shield:
Sub-divisions and Nomenclatures
Because of reconstitution as well as destruction of a considerable
part of the 'Greater Indian Shield', we have to depend on the
geological information only from the region of Peninsular
India to understand the growth and the framework of the Indian
Shield. This is in spite of the fact that a considerable part of
the region is under the cover of Phanerozoic rocks like the
Deccan Traps, Gondwana formations and other younger
sediments.
In the present paper, Roger’s (1986) nondescript term
'Join' has been used as the separation plane (trace of which
appears as line on the surface) between the individual
Protocontinents (using the term suggested by Naqvi et al.,
1974) which formed nucleus of initially growing Crust. In the
context of the Indian Shield all these Joins are the sites of
formation of Gondwana rift basins. The implication for using
the nondescript term, Join, is that it speaks of the contact
surface between the Protocontinents without specifying any
tectonic model how the crustal blocks actually got tacked
(sutured) together.

Krishnan (1948) was amongst the earliest geologists who
proposed subdivision of Precambrian terrane of the Peninsular
India (henceforth described as Indian Shield) by noting divergent
patterns of structural trend-lines in different parts. The concept
was challenged by Naha (1964), who questioned the usefulness
of structural trend-lines for Precambrian crustal blocks as a
basis of sub-division especially in regions of complex
superimposed folding. However, in spite of the criticism,
Krishnan's suggestion merits consideration assuming that the
different crustal blocks, which evolved under divergent stress
systems are likely to have distinctive trend-lines (or 'structural
grains'). According to Naqvi et al. (1974) the Indian Shield is
made up of a collage of 'Protocontinents' (smaller fragments
of Precambrian Crust forming continental nuclei) separated
by rift valleys. Rogers (1986), however, preferred to follow
the Canadian model, and recognised five different 'Provinces'
in the Indian Shield separated by four major 'Joins'.
Ramakrishnan and Vaidyanadhan (2008), while
proposing subdivisions of the Indian Shield advocated use of
terminologies like 'Cratons' and 'Mobile belts' stressing that
these are widely adopted in Precambrian literature (see also
Sharma, 2010). They chose to accept these terms because of
the 'genetic flavour they carry' in preference to the 'sterile'
nomenclatures like 'Provinces' and 'Blocks'. It may sound a bit
of a semantic exercise, but a critical review of nomenclatures
and terminologies which are being used to describe components
of Indian Shield may appear instructive especially in view of
the divergent, and at times contradictory, opinions expressed
by different authors.
It is true that terms 'Shield' and 'Craton' are widely
used in geological literature dealing with Precambrian geology
in different parts of the world, but their usage generally carries
different connotation. Shield in most usage is considered
synonymous with Craton. On the other hand, some authors
184 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
define Craton 'as large, stable Precambrian terrane which
include both Shield and Platform' (Hatcher, jr. 1978; Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia). A completely different meaning is
intended in the usage of terms by Ramakrishnan and
Vaidyanadhan (2008) while proposing division of the Peninsular
Indian Shield into Cratons and Mobile belts.
The etymological meaning of the word ‘Craton’ is
reflected in the description that ‘it is an old and stable part of
the Continental Crust which survived merging and splitting of
Continents and Supercontinents since Precambrian’ (Hatcher,
jr. 1978).
Ingrained in the definition is the subtle thought that
Cratons are virtually permanent features on Earth. The idea,
itself, may appear misleading knowing well that the Earth has
undergone a number of tectonic (or Supercontinent-building)
cycles since the formation of the earliest Crust about 4.5 billion
years ago. The notion of permanency (of Cratons) perhaps
comes from the perception that the Canadian, Ukranian and
some other Shield/cratonic areas in the world remained
tectonically undisturbed since Precambrian. The geological
history of Indian Shield tells us a different story. This is amongst
a very few Precambrian terranes in the world which was
involved in continental collision, and losing its components
while building up the Himalayan edifice. Further, the decimation
of the Indian Shield was caused through separation of Antarctica
and possibly of Australia in the Eastern and and southeastern
part and Madagascar and Seychelles in the southwest.
Considering the Phanerozoic reconstitution of the Indian Shield,
it is possible to conclude that a Craton, contrary to its
etymological meaning, need not be a permanently stable feature
on Earth which would not change with time. The evolution of
the Himalaya tells us how a Craton or parts of it turn into a
Mobile belt. That the reverse is also possible is implied in the
expression like 'cratonization', which stands for enlargement
of cratonic blocks through accretion (i.e., addition by
attachment) of Mobile belts. Precisely speaking, Cratons and
Mobile belts are time-dependent relative terms, and because
of that, their usage in describing Precambrian geology of a
region without characterisation is liable to add unnecessary
confusion. Regarding other terms and nomenclatures used by
different authors, the sheer multiplicity of propositions certainly
calls for an objective view on the question of the use of terms.
In pursuance of the above discussion, use of the term
'Protocontinent' suggested by Naqvi et al. (1974) is preferred
for the Precambrian crustal blocks which evolved as
fundamental units during the early evolutionary history of the
Earth's Crust.
Framework of Indian Shield: Tectonic
Divisions
The earliest proposal on the broad tectonic division of the Indian
Shield (should read Peninsular Indian Shield) comes from
Fermor (1936) who divided it into two broad tectono-
metamorphic domains: Charnockitic and Non-charnockitic
regions. Since Fermor's (1936) division of the Indian Shield
into two exclusive terranes, a number of reports came up
indicating occurrence of chanockite and granulite facies rocks
from different parts of the Indian Shield outside the Fermor's
Charnokite Line. Yet, Fermor's proposal deserves consideration
as it provides an important clue to differentiate the Precambrian
rocks of Indian Peninsula into two basic crustal types having
distinctly different tectonic evolutionary history.
A feature of great significance is the cross-cutting
relationship between the Charnockitic and the Non-charnockitic
terranes indicated in the geological map of India published by
Geological Survey of India (1993), especially in the case of
the Eastern Ghats Belt which lies astride the structural grains
of the three Precambrian crustal blocks (Dharwar, Bastar and
Singhbhum) occurring on its western side. The cross-cutting
relationship is most obvious especially in the domain north of
the Godavari (P-G) Valley (Fig. 3). According to Ramakrishnan
et al. (1998) the Eastern Ghats belt represents a zone of westerly-
directed thrust slices abutting against the Precambrian block
of Bastar. Based on this, the western margin of the Eastern
Ghats belt is interpreted as an ancient Suture Zone resulting
from continental collision (very much like the Himalayan
collisional tectonics) in response to the 'compression from
Enderby Land' (in Antarctica). Quoting Gupta et al. (2005)
and Leelanandam et al. (2006), Ramakrishnan and
Vaidyanadhan (2008) interpreted the occurrences of 'deformed
alkaline rocks and carbonatites' along the western margin of
the Eastern Ghats belt as a marker of an ancient Suture Zone.
The interpretation has a strong support from multidisciplinary
studies of Gupta et al. (2000) and Bhadra et al. (2004).
 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
Fig. 3. Geological map showing extent of the Eastern Ghats Belt (with the
redefined western boundary in the south), truncating the structural grains of
Dharwar, Bastar and Singhbhum Protocontinents. P-G Valley = Pranhita-
Godavari River Valley (after Geological Survey of India map, 1993).
Further confirmation of collisional tectonics comes from
the field and Satellite Imagery study of Chetty (2001, 2010),
Biswal et al. (2000) and Biswal and Sinha (2003, 2004) who
characterised the Eastern Ghats Belt as a collage of nappes
thrusted over the western Indian crustal blocks.
Regarding the tectonic status of the western margin of
the Eastern Ghats Belt south of Godavari (P-G) Valley, a little
elaboration is necessary in view of some studies made in recent
years, especially on the tectonostratigraphic status of the
Nellore-Khammam Schist Belt and associated ensembles
(Ramam and Murthy, 1997; Babu, 1998; Ramakrishnan et al.,
1998; Rickers et al., 2001; Dobmeier and Raith, 2003).
According to Ramakrishnan and Vaidyanadhan (2008), the
western margin of the Eastern Ghats Belt coincides with the
'Western Charnockite Zone' which disappears into Bay of
Bengal near Ongle (about 100 km north of Nellore).
Immediately west of this occurs the Nellore-Khammam Schist
Belt (NKSB), traditionally considered a component of the
Dharwar Archaean terrane (Krishnan, 1948; Valdiya, 2010).
Ramakrishnan (2003) making a departure from
the conventionally held view, described the status of the belt
as enigmatic. In saying so, he made special mention of the
185
parallelism of the belt with the tectonic trend of the Eastern
Ghats Belt. Recently available isotope data suggest a
Palaeoproterozoic age (~1.78Ga) for the felsic magmatism in
the Vinjamuru domain of the schist belt, which is interpreted
as the age of an event of convergent tectonism at the southeastern
margin of the Eastern Dharwar Craton (Vadlamani et al., 2012).
These data provide conclusive evidence that the ensemble is
not a part of the Archaean Dharwar belt but represents an
exotic block which was thrusted over the pre-existing western
Indian crustal blocks. Considering these, Ramakrishnan (2003)
hinted at the possible correlation of the NKSB with the evolution
of the Nallamalai fold belt occurring along the tectonized
eastern margin of the Cuddapah basin. Based on this it is
suggested that the Nallamalai folds are indentation structures
resulting from the westerly-directed compressive forces.
Dobmeier and Raith (2003), based on critical evaluation
of the existing geological and isotopic data, suggested inclusion
of the granulites of the Ongole block as also the Nellore-
Khammam Schist Belt into the domain of the Eastern Ghats
(orogenic) Belt. The revision implies not only the enlargement
of the concept of Fermor's 'Charnockite Line', but also the
shifting of 'Line' further to the west coinciding with the eastern
sheared margin of the Cuddapah Basin. Apart from shifting of
the terrane boundary further to the west, the tectonostratigraphic
reinterpretation of the ensembles occurring between the 'East
Coast granulite belt' and the Cuddapah Basin implies that the
Eastern Ghats is not entirely made of granulites but also
includes middle and lower grade metamorphic components.
The structural relationship is shown in the schematic
map (Fig. 3), in which, the western margin of the Eastern
Ghats Belt is drawn along eastern margin of the Cuddapah-
Kurnool outcrop following the tectonostratigraphic
reinterpretation of rock ensembles discussed above.
In the southern part of the Indian Shield (Peninsular),
the irregular, broadly east-west Charnockite Line of Fermor
(1936) is said to demarcate the contact between the N-S-
trending Dharwar granite-greenstone ensembles in the north
and the dominantly charnockite-bearing granulite terrane in
the south (Fig. 4). As in the case of the Eastern Ghats Belt,
here also the Charnockite Line is considered a terrane boundary
between two distinctly different crustal types having different
tectonostratigraphic significance.
186 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
Fig. 4. Lithotectonic map of the southern part of the Peninsular Indian Shield
showing major tectonic features (after Ramakrishnan and Vaidyanadhan,
2008). PCSZ = Palghat-Cauvery Shear Zone.
Contradicting Fermor's concept, some later workers
interpreted the Charnockite Line a metamorphic isograd
boundary (Allen et al., 1983; Raith et al., 1983; Ramakrishnan,
2003) marking a regional southward progression of
metamorphism from the greenstone to upper amplibolite grade
and finally to hypersthene-bearing granulite grade in the south
(Janardhan et al., 1983). In other words, the concept implies
a continuity of the Archaean Dharwar rocks further south of
the Fermor Line.
The proof of the presence of a single continuous belt of
rocks also comes from the occurrence of the trails of the
coevally metamorphosed Archaean granite-greenstone belt
rocks showing a metamorphic state compatible with the
enclosing granulite bodies along with tonalitic to trondjhemitic
Peninsular Gneiss, meta-basaltic dykes of different generations
and their granulitic equivalents well within the massifs of
Biligirirangan, Coorg and Nilgiri Hills in the south (Rama
Rao, 1940, Janardhan et al., 1983). The reports of end-Archaean
ages ranging between 2500 and 2900 Ma both in the
charnockitic granulites and in the Peninsular gneisses from
the southernmost part of the peninsular India
(Venkatasubramanian, 1975; Friend, 1981; Friend and Nutman,
1992; Jayananda and Peucat, 1996; Chaudhary et al., 1992)
further confirm the existence of a single continuous Archaean
granulite terrane, described as High-Grade Terrane (Allen et
al., 1983) south of the Charnockite Line.
Based on the study of the fault system and Lineament,
Vemban et al. (1977) was the first to propose that the
southernmost tip of the granulite mass occurring south of the
Cauvery Fault (marking the southern boundary of the Palghat-
Cauvery Shear Zone, PCSZ) represents a crustal block which
is tectonically different from the indisputable Archaean
gneiss-granulite terrane in the north. The new tectonic model
received weighty support of Drury and Holt (1980) and Drury
et al. (1984) based on their studies on Satellite Imagery. The
geochronological support for the concept of the two diverse
terranes comes from the reports of 'younger' Pan-African
tectono-thermal reconstitution ages centring around 500 ± 50
Ma for the granulites and associated rocks from the south of
the PCSZ (Harris et al., 1994; Chaudhary et al., 1992; Bartlett
et al., 1995; Unnikrishnan-Warrier et al., 1995; Santosh et al.,
1992, 2003; Shabeer et al., 2005; Collins et al., 2007). Both
the satellite imagery study and the isotope data, therefore,
provide undeniable proof of existence of two juxtaposed
terranes across the PCSZ. These are named the Northern
Granulite Terrain, NGT, characteristically bearing signatures
of Archaean evolutionary history in the north, and the Southern
Granulite Terrain, SGT, showing evidence of strong Pan-
African tectonothermal reconstitution south of PCSZ
(Srikantappa et al., 2003).
Naming the southern terrane (south of PCSZ) as SGT
may appear misleading because the same nomenclature is also
in use for the entire granulite terrane south of the Fermor Line.
Possibly because of that Ramakrishnan (1993) introduced a
new term 'Pandyan mobile belt' for the southernmost granulite
terrane. However, this new nomenclature though appears quite
rational did not find general acceptance in literature (Sharma,
2010). In the present paper, therefore, the traditionally accepted
nomenclature is used, but after changing the geographic term
'terrain' by the nondescript word 'belt', and with a rider
constraining its northern limit to the south of PCSZ.
PCSZ which acts as a tectonic divide between two
distinctive terranes is also considered a Suture Zone marking
accretion (or welding) of diverse crustal blocks (Radhakrishna
and Naqvi, 1986; Gopalakrishnan, 1996). Some authors
advocate that the accretion was caused during collision (of the
Dharwar crustal block) with a 'craton' in Africa or Antarctica
(Ramakrishnan, 2003; Sharma, 2010).
 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
The rocks of the redefined Southern Granulite Belt show
many similarities in lithologic and metamorphic character with
those of the Eastern Ghats Belt (barring the newly added
ensembles of Nelore-Khammam Schist Belt in its domain).
Both the belts show Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic protolith ages
of the gneisses and granulites, but have undergone significant
reconstitution (under granulite facies condition) by the late-
Proterozoic tectonothermal events. This could be the reason
for mapping the entire charnockite terrane in Peninsular India
(sensu Fermor, 1936) as the 'Eastern Ghats' (Subramanyam,
1983). Based on their geographic disposition, these are named
the Coastal Granulite Terrain (Eastern Ghats domain sensu
stricto) and the 'Southern Granulite Terrane' (for the granulite
province south of Fermor Line in south India). The combined
terranes are known to have their counterparts outside the
domain of the Indian Peninsula. Apart from the possibility of
their being 'exotic' or 'suspect terranes' (Radhakrishna, 1989),
the granulite and other high-grade metamorphic rocks
comprising the Eastern Ghats and the Southern Granulite Belt
(even considering the revised boundaries) appear distinctly
different from the components of the Non-charnockite belt in
terms of their lithostratigraphic character, tectono-metamorphic
evolutionary history, geochronologic framework, and
metallogenic traits (Ramakrishnan and Vaidyanadhan, 2008;
Sharma, 2010; Valdiya, 2010). Characterisation of the
charnockite belts as exotic or suspect terranes implies that
non-charnockitic domain constituted the primary crustal block
or 'Proto-India' (Dobmeier and Raith, 2003), the frontiers of
which were enlarged because of the subsequent accretion of
Charnockite terranes. The concept is ingrained in the thought
of Mahadevan (1994) who conceived of a 'central core region'
as the primary crustal block constituting the Peninsular Indian
Shield to which the granulite belts were exhumed. In the present
description, however, the term Proto-India is preferred as it
appears a little more evocative in describing the framework
of the Indian Shield.
Following the suggestion of the early geologists of late
nineteenth century of the Geological Survey of India (Medlicott
and Blanford, 1879-81) the Proto-India comprising components
of Fermor's (1936) Non-charnockitic terrane can be divided
into a northern Aravalli-Bundelkhand domain and a southern
Gondwana domain. The two domains are physiographically
separated by the Narmada-Son River Valley, which today
is better known as the Narmada-Son Lineament (Mahadevan,
187
1994). The Gondwana rift basins developed only in the southern
Gondwana domain and partly along the southern fringe the
Aravalli-Bundelkhand domain.
The Aravalli-Bundelkhand domain can be further sub-
divided into an eastern 'Bundelkhand Mass' and a western
Aravalli Mountains (including the western sandy plain of Thar
Desert). In spite of many similarities, the emerging thought is
that these two Precambrian crustal blocks have evolved more
or less contemporaneously but under two different tectonic
settings. The Archaean Crust of the Aravalli Mountains enlarged
its dimension through stabilisation (=cratonization) of three
successive mobile belts during Palaeoproterozoic-early
Neoproterzoic (Roy and Jakhar, 2002). The Bundelkhand Mass,
on the other hand portrays a different picture of late-Archaean
cratonization with the deposition of Palaeo-Mesoproterozoic
sedimentary-volcanic succession under stable platformal
condition. The difference between the two is also reflected in
some way in the lithological character, tectonic pattern and
the metallogenic behaviour (Roy and Jakhar, 2002). Considering
all these, it may be logical to subdivide the northern domain
into two fundamental nuclei, the Bundelkhand and Aravalli
Protocontinents respectively, separated by the Great Boundary
Fault.
Southern Gondwana domain can be subdivided into a
number of separate 'fundamental nuclei' or protocontinents,
which are separated by narrow belts of 'Gondawana rift basins'.
For example, the Gondwana rift basin of the Godavari Valley
(also known as the Pranhita-Godavari valley or simply
P-G valley, Fig. 5) divides the Dharwar from the Bastar
Protocontinent. On the other hand, the Gondwana rift basin of
the Mahanadi Valley separates the Bastar from the Singhbhum
Protocontinent. Thus, looking into the faithful regularity with
which the Gondwana rift basins occur between the
protocontinents, we may consider these as zones separating
the protocontinental nucleus (Fig. 5). In the present description
the nondescript term 'Join' (hiring the term from Rogers, 1986)
is used as markers separating the primary crustal blocks. Very
little is known about these zones along which Joins are traced
except the antiquity of rift zones over which the Gondwana
basins evolved (Naqvi et al., 1974). In the Godavari Valley
which marks the Join between the Dharwar and Bastar
protocontinents, the cratonic platformal Proterozoic sediments
form the basement for the Gondwana rift basins. In other
instances, the Gondwana rift basins (marking Joins) overlie
the unclassified Precambrian granite and gneisses.
188 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
Fig. 5. Schematic map showing distribution of Joins (marked red) separating
the Protocontinents of the Gondwana domain of Proto-India. N-S-L=
Narmada-Son Lineament; Dv-L =Damodar Valley Lineament; Gd-L
=Godavari Valley Lineament; Mn-L=Mahanadi Valley Lineament;
RJM= Rajmahal.
The proposed scheme of dividing the Gondwana domain
by Joins marked by the Gondwana rift basins would imply
delimitation of the Singhbhum Protocontinent by Gondwana
rift basin of the Damodar Valley in the north. This leaves a
small region between the Son-Narmada Lineament in the
northwest and the Damodar Valley Gondwana basins in the
south. If we accept the poorly exposed, north-south-trending
Rajmahal coal occurrences as remnant of a Gondwana basin,
then the extent of this continental nucleus would be the small
triangular area bounded by the Son-Narmada Lineament in
the northwest and the Damodar valley Gondwana basins in
the south, and the Rajmahal coal occurrences in the east. On
the other hand, the reported presence of Gondwan rift basins
in the northern Bengal Basin under the thick cover of 'Cenozoic
to Recent' sediments in the 'Garo-Rajmahal Gap' (in Bangladesh)
across the N-S-lying outcrops of the Rajmahal Traps strongly
suggests the continuity of the Damodar Valley coal basins
further east (Khan et al., 1994). Thus, if we neglect the
Rajmahal coal belts as misidentified 'freak' occurrence, then
there lies the possibility of extension of this northern
Precambrian nuclei further east across the Bengal Basin
into the Precambrian blocks of Shillong Plateau and its eastern
continuity. We may tentatively describe this poorly defined
crustal block as the Rajmahal Protocontinent.
Litho-components of the newly defined protocontinents
possibly include a diverse stratigraphically unclassified rock
ensembles starting with granite-gneiss in the south to the zone
riddled with mica-rich pegmatite and finally to carbonate-free,
little metamorphosed shale-sand sequences occurring around
Rajgir-Jamalpur-Munger region in the north. The limit of the
Rajmahal Protocontinent in the east is virtually unknown
because of the occurrence of thick younger Cenozoic sediments
forming the Bengal Basin. It is possible that the Protocontinent
continues further east joining the Precambrian rocks of the
Shillong Palteau. Some Gondwana-type coal basins are known
from different parts of the eastern Himalayas. We cannot
therefore rule out the possibility that the dismembered and
tectonised Gondwana basins in the Himalayas are components
of the Rajmahal Protocontinent.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
In spite of the wide reference in literature, the term Shield may
appear contradictory if it is applied only for the geomorphic
region of peninsular India. Studies indicate that this Precambrian
crustal block covered a wider spatial extent much beyond the
boundaries of the peninsular India of the triangular-shaped
terrane. This helps to confirm the concept of a Greater Indian
Shield.
Evolving during the Precambrian, the Greater Indian
Shield had undergone several successive changes in extent
during the Jurassic break-up of Gondwanaland and the
subsequent tectonothermal events during the succeeding Plume
impingement under the northward drifting East Gondwana
crustal block. Relying on the information from the Peninsular
India, it is possible to divide this Precambrian crustal block
into two major tectonic blocks comprising the Precambrian
continental core or Proto-India (hiring the term from Dobmeier
and Raith, 2003) and the accreted charnockitic terranes. Proto-
India, belonging to two major domains: Aravalli-Bundelkhand
and the Gondwana, can be further sub-divided six fundamental
nuclei or protocontinents separated by Joins. These are:
1. Dharwar, 2. Bastar, 3. Singhbhum, 4. Rajmahal,
5. Bundelkhand and 6. Aravalli. The two accreted terranes
which were added subsequently include the Eastern Ghats Belt
(7) and the Southern Granulite Belts (8) (Fig. 6). The combined
Precambrian crustal blocks of Proto-India and the accreted
terrains constitute the Indian Shield.
 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
Fig. 6. Geological map of Indian Subcontinent (Based on Geological Survey
of India map, 1993). Inset numbers are (1) Dharwar, (2) Bastar,
(3) Singhbhum, (4) Rajmahal, (5) Bundelkhand, (6) Aravalli, (7)
Eastern Ghats Belt, and (8) Southern Granulite Belt.
The Joins that separate or suture the Protocontinents
as well as the 'accreted' terranes, are marked by different
features, such as fault trace (as between the Aravalli and the
Bundelkhand), thrust or ductile shear zone (as between Eastern
Ghats Belt and the Dharwar, Bastar and Singhbhum to its west,
and between Dharwar and Southern Granulite Belt), or
lineaments like Narmada-Son, Godavari or Mahanadi which
follow coal-bearing Gondwana rift basins.
The precision with which the Joins drawn along the
middle of the Gondwana rift basins help to differentiate the
Protocontinents leaves no reasonable ground for identifying
a separate crustal block like the 'Satpura Mobile Belt'
(Ramakrishnan and Vaidyanadhan, 2008) by indiscriminately
'picking' up assorted geological components from different
Precambrian terrane.
The suggestion that the Precambrian continental
blocks are separated by the occurrence of Phanerozoic features
like the development of Gondwana rift basins may appear
intriguing. Presumably it calls for some explanation. During
the Carboniferous time there was an attempt to fragment the
189
southern Gondwana landmass possibly because of some stress
build up. The attempt was aborted, but was strong enough to
open up rift basins along some weak zones oriented at high
o
angles (greater than 45 ) to the component of extension.
Presumably the Joins connecting different crustal blocks were
the weakest links in the tectonic framework triggering the
opening of ensialic rift basins along these zones. No Gondwana-
type rift basin developed in the Aravalli-Bundelkhand block
characterised by NE-SW structural grains. This is presumably
because of the parallelism of the extensional stresses with the
prevailing structural grains in that terrane (Roy, 2004).
Acknowledgements
The present paper forms a part of the research project under
Honorary Scientist scheme of Indian National Science Academy.
References
Ali, J.R. and Aitchison, J.C., 2008: Gondwana to Asia: Plate tectonics,
paleogeography and the biological connectivity of the Indian sub-
continent from the Middle Jurassic through latest Eocene (166-35
Ma). Earth-Sci. Reviews, 88: 145-166.
Allen, P., Condie, K.C. and Narayana, B.L., 1983: The Archaean low- to
high-grade transition in the Krishnagiri-Dharmapuri area, Tamilnadu,
southern India. In: Precambrian of South India, S.M. Naqvi and
J.J.W. Rogers (eds.), Mem. Geol.Soc. India, 4: 450-461.
Argand, E., 1924: La tectonique de l’Asie. Proc. Int. Geol. Congr., 7:
171-372.
Babu, V.R.R.M., 1998: Nellore schist belt – An Archaean greenstone belt,
Andhra Pradesh. In: Precambrian crustal processes in East Coast
Granulite-Greenstone Regions of India within East Gondwana
(IGCP), A.T. Rao, S.R. Divi and M. Yoshida (eds.), Gondwana
Research Group, Mem. 4: 97-136.
Bartlett, J.M., Harris, N.B.W., Hawkesworth, C.J. and Santosh, M., 1995:
New Isotope Constraints on the Crustal Evolution of South India
and Pan-African Granulite Metamorphism. In: India and Antarctica
During the Precambrian, M. Yoshida and M. Santosh (eds.), Mem.
Geol. Soc. India, 34: 391-397.
Bhadra, S., Gupta, S. and Banerjee, M., 2004: Structural evolution across
the Eastern Ghats Mobile Belt–Bastar craton boundary, India: hot
over cold thrusting in an ancient collision zone. Jour. Struct. Geol.,
26: 233–245.
Biswal, T.K. and Sinha, S., 2003: Deformation history of the NW salient
of the Eastern Ghats Mobile Belt, India. Jour. Asian Earth Sci., 22:
157-169.
190 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
Biswal, T.K. and Sinha, S., 2004: Fold-Thrust-Belt Structure of the
Proterozoic Eastern Ghats Mobile Belt: A Proposed Correlation
Between India and Antarctica in Gondwana. Gond. Res., 7: 43-56.
Biswal, T.K., Jena, S.K., Datta, S., Das, R. and Khan, K., 2000: Deformation
of Terrane Boundary Shear Zone (Lakhna Shear Zone) between the
Eastern Ghats Mobile belt and the Bastar Craton, in Bolangir and
Kalahandi districts of Orissa. Jour. Geol. Soc. India, 55: 367-380.
Chaudhary, A.K., Harris, N.B.W., van Calsteren, P. and Hawkesworth,
C.J., 1992: Pan-African charnockite formation in Kerala, South
India. Geol. Mag., 129: 257-264.
Chetty, T.R.K., 2001: The Eastern Ghats Mobile Belt, India: a collage of
juxtaposed terranes (?). Gond. Res., 4: 319-328.
Chetty, T.R.K., 2010: Structural architecture of the northern composite
terrane, the Eastern Ghats Mobile Belt, India: Implications for
Gondwana tectonics. Gond. Res., 18: 565-582.
Collins, A.S., Santosh, M., Braun, I. and Clark, C., 2007: Age and
sedimentary provenance of the Southern Granulites, South India:
U-Th-Pb SHRIMP secondary ion mass spectrometry. Precamb. Res.,
155: 125-138.
Dasgupta, S. and Sengupta, P., 2003: Indo-Antarctic correlation: a
perspective from the Eastern Ghats Granulite Belt, India. Spl. Pub.
Geol. Soc. London, 206: 131-143.
DeCelles, P. G., Robinson, D.M. and Zandt, G., 2002: Implications of
shortening in the Himalayan fold-thrust belt for uplift of the Tibetan
Plateau. Tectonics, (DOI:10.1029/2001TC001322), 21(6): 1062-
1087.
Dewey, J. F., Cande, S. and Pitman III, E.C., 1989: Tectonic evolution
of India/Eurasia collision zone. Eclogae Geol. Helv., 82: 717-734.
Dobmeier, C. J. and Raith, M. M., 2003: Crustal architecture and evolution
of the Eastern Ghats Belt and adjacent regions of India. In: Proterozoic
East Gondwana Supercontinent Assembly and breakup, M.Yoshida,
B. F. Windley and S. Dasgupta, (eds.), Spl. Pub. Geol. Soc. London,
206: 145-168.
Drury, S.A. and Holt, R.W., 1980: The tectonic framework of the South
Indian craton: a reconnaissance involving Landsat imagery.
Tectonophysics, 65: 1-15.
Drury, S.A., Harris, N.B.W., Holt, R.W., Reeves-Smith, G.J. and Wightman,
R.T., 1984: Precambrian tectonics and crustal evolution in South
India. Jour. Geol., 92: 3-20.
Fermor, L.L., 1936: An attempt at the correlation of ancient schistose
formation of Peninsular India. Mem. Geol. Surv. India, 70(1): 1-51.
Friend, C.R.L., 1981: Charnockite and granite formation and influx of
CO2 at Kabbaldurga. Nature, 294: 550-552.
Friend, C.R.L. and Nutman, A.P., 1992: Response of zircon U-Pb isotopes
and whole- rock geochemistry to CO2-induced granulite facies
metamorphism, Kabbaldurga, Karnataka, South India. Contrib.
Mineral. Petrol., 111: 299-310.
GSI, 1993: Geological Map of India, Scale 1:5,000,000. Geological
Survey of India.
Gopalakrishnan, K., 1996: An overview of Southern Granulite Terrain,
India – Constraints in Reconstruction of Precambrian Assembly of
Gondwanaland. Proc. Ninth International Gondwana Symp.
(Gondwana Nine), Oxford-IBH, New Delhi, 2: 1003-1026.
Gupta, S., Bhattacharya, A., Raith, M. and Nanda, J.K., 2000: Contrasting
pressure-temperature-deformation history across a vestigial craton-
mobile belt boundary: the western margin of the Eastern Ghats belt
at Deobhog, India. Jour. Metamorphic Geol., 18: 683–697.
Gupta, S., Nanda, J., Mukherjee, S.K. and Santra, M., 2005: Alkaline
magmatism versus Collision Tectonics in the Eastern Ghats Belt,
India: Constraints from Structural studies in the Koraput Complex.
Gond. Res., 8: 403-419.
Harris, N.B.W., Santosh, M. and Taylor, P.N., 1994: Crustal evolution in
south India: constraints from Nd isotopes. Jour. Geol., 102: 139-
150.
Hatcher, jr. R.D., 1978: Enclyclopedia of Geological Sciences. McGraw-
Hill, 816p.
Janardhan, A.S., Newton, R.C. and Hansen, E.C., 1983: Transformation
of Peninsular Gneiss to charnockite in southern Karnataka. In:
Precambrian of South India, S.M. Naqvi and J.J.W. Rogers (eds.),
Mem. Geol. Soc. India, 4: 417- 435.
Jayananda, M. and Peucat, J.J.,1996: Geochronological framework of
Southern India. In: The Archaean and Proterozoic terrains in southern
India within east Gondwana, M. Santosh and M. Yoshida (eds.),
Gondwana Research Group Mem, 3: 53-75.
Kelly, N.M., Clarke, G.L. and Fanning, C.M., 2002: A two-stage evolution
of the Neoproterozoic Rayner structural episode: new U-Pb sensitive
high resolution ion microprobe constraints from the Oygarden Group,
Kemp Land, East Antarctica. Precamb. Res., 116: 307-330.
Khan, A. A., Sattar, G.S. and Rahman, T., 1994: Tectogenesis of the
Gondwana Rifted Basins of Bangladesh in the so-called Garo-
Rajmahal Gap and Their Pre-drift Regional Tectonic Correlation.
Proc. Ninth International Gondwana Symposium. Oxford-IBH, New
Delhi, 647-655.
Krishnan, M.S., 1948: Geology of India and Burma. Higginbothams
(Private) Ltd., Madras, 555p.
Kröner, A., Cooray, P.G., and Vitanage, P. W., 1991: Lithotectonic
subdivision of the Precambrian basement in Sri Lanka., Pt.1. Summary
of Research of the German-Sri Lankan Consortium. Geol. Surv.
Dept. Sri Lanka, Professional paper, 5: 5-25.
Le Fort, P., 1975: Himalayas: the collided range. Present knowledge of
the continental arc. Am. Jour. Sci., 27: 1-44.
Leelanandam, C., Burke, K., Ashwal, L.D. and Webb, S.J., 2006: Proterozoic
Mountain Building in India: An analysis based primarily on alkaline
rock distribution. Geol. Mag., 143: 195-212.
 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
Mahadevan, T.M., 1994: Deep continental structure of India: A Review.
Mem. Geol. Soc. India, 28: 1-569.
Medlicott, H.B. and Blandord, W.T., 1879-81: Manual Geology of India
(Part I, Part II) Geological Survey of India, Calcutta.
Molnar, P. and Tapponnier, P., 1975: Cenozoic tectonics of Asia: effects
of a continental collision. Science, 189: 419-426.
Naha, K., 1964: A critique of the orogenic trends in Archaean correlation
in India. Tectonophysics, 1: 431-438.
Naqvi, S.M., Divakara Rao, V. and Hari Narayan, 1974: Archaean
protocontinental growth of the Indian Shield and the antiquity of
the rift valleys. Precamb. Res., 1: 345-398.
Qureshy, M.N., 1969: Thickening of the basalt layer as a possible cause
for the uplift of the Himalayas – A suggestion based on gravity data.
Tectonophysics, 7: 137-157.
Qureshy, M.N. and Surendra Kumar, 1992: Isostasy and neotectonics of
the northeast Himalaya and foredeep. In: Himalayan Seismicity,
G.D. Gupta (ed.), Mem. Geol. Soc. India, 23: 201-222.
Radhakrishna, B.P., 1989: Suspect tectono-stratigraphic terrane elements
in the Indian Subcontinent. Jour. Geol. Soc. India, 34: 1-24.
Radhakrishna, B.P. and Naqvi, S.M., 1986: Precambrian continental crust
of India and its evolution. Jour. Geol., 94: 145-166.
Radhakrishna, T., Dallmeyer, R.D. and Joseph, M., 1994: Palaeomagnetism
36 40 39 40
and Ar/ Ar vs. Ar/ Ar isotope correlation ages of dyke swarms
in central Kerala, India: Tectonic implications. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett., 121: 213-226.
Radhakrishna, T., Maluski, H., Michell, J.G. and Joseph, M., 1999:
40 39
Ar/ Ar and K/Ar geochronology of the dykes from south Indian
granulite terrain. Tectonophysics, 304: 109-129.
Raith, M., Raase, P., Ackermand, D. and Lal R.K., 1983: Metamorphic
conditions in the charnockite-khondalite zone of south India:
Geothermobarometry on garnet-pyroxene-plagioclase rocks. In:
Precambrian of South India, S.M. Naqvi and J.J.W. Rogers (eds.),
Mem. Geol. Soc. India, 4: 436-449.
Ramam, P.K. and Murthy, V.N., 1997: Geology of Andhra Pradesh.
Geological Society India, Bangalore. 245p.
Rama Rao, B., 1940: The Archaean Complex of Mysore. Bull. Mysore
Geol. Dept., 17: 1-95.
Ramakrishnan, M., 1993: Tectonic evolution of granulite terrains of
southern India. In: Continental Crust of South India, B.P. Radhakrishna
(ed.), Mem. Geol. Soc. India, 25: 35-44.
Ramakrishnan, M., 2003: Craton-Mobile Belt Relations in Southern
Granulite Terrain. In: Tectonics of the Southern Granulite Terrain:
Kuppam-Palani Geotransect, M. Ramakrishnan (ed.), Mem. Geol.
Soc. India, 50: 1-24.
Ramakrishnan, M. and Vaidyanadhan, R., 2008: Geology of India, Vol.
I, Geological Society of India, 556p.
191
Ramakrishnan, M., Nanda, J.K. and Augustine, P.F., 1998: Geological
evolution of the Proterozoic Eastern Ghats mobile belt. Spl. Pub.
Geol. Surv. India, 44: 1-21.
Rickers, K., Mezger, K. and Raith, M.M., 2001: Evolution of the
Continental Crust in the Proterozoic Eastern Ghats Belt, India and
new constraints for Rodinia reconstruction: implications from Sm-
Nd, Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb isotopes. Precamb. Res., 112: 183-210.
Rogers, J. J. W., 1986: Dharwar craton and the assembly of Peninsular
India. Jour. Geol., 94: 129-143.
Roy, A. B., 2003: Geological and Geophysical Manifestations of the
Reunion Plume-Indian Lithosphere Interactions—Evidence from
northwest India. Gond. Res., 6: 487-500.
Roy, A. B., 2004: The Phanerozoic Reconstitution of Indian Shield as the
Aftermath of Break-up of the Gondwanaland. Gond. Res., 7: 387-
406.
Roy, A. B., 2006: Seismicity in the Peninsular Indian Shield: Some
Geological considerations. Curr. Sci., 91: 456-463.
Roy, A. B., 2010: Fundamentals of Geology. Revised and reprinted in
2012. Narosa, Alpha Science, Oxford, New Delhi, 291p.
Roy, A. B. and Jakhar, S. R., 2002: Geology of Rajasthan: Precambrian
to Recent. Scientific Publishers (India), Jodhpur, 421p.
Santosh, M., Kagami, H. Yoshida, M. and Nada-Kumar, V., 1992: Pan-
African charnockite formation in East Gondwana: geochronologic
(Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr) and petrologic constraints. Bull. Indian Geol.
Assoc., 25: 1-10.
Santosh, M., Yokoyama, K., Biju-Sekhar, S. and Rogers, J.J.W., 2003:
Multiple Tectonothermal Events in the Granulite Blocks of Southern
India Revealed from EPMA Dating: Implications on the History of
Supercontinents. Gond. Res., 6: 29-63.
Sen, S.K., Bhattacharya, S. and Acharyya, A., 1995: A multi-stage pressure-
temperature record in the Chilka lake granulites: the epitome of the
metamorphic evolution of Eastern Ghats, India? Jour. Metamorphic
Petrology, 13: 287-298.
Sengupta, P., Sen, J., Dasgupta, S., Raith, M., Bhui, U.K. and Ehl, J.,
1999: Ultra-high Temperature Metamorphism of Metapelitic
Granulites from Kondapalle, Eastern Ghats Belt: Implications for
the Indo-Antarctic correlation. Jour. Petrology, 40: 1065-1087.
Searle, B.P., Windley, B.F., Coward, M.P., Cooper, D.J.W., Rex, A.J.,
Tingdong, L., Xuchang, X., Jan, M.Q., Thakur, V.C. and Kumar,
S.M., 1987: The closing of the Tethys and the tectonics of the
Himalaya. Bull. Geol. Soc. America, 78: 678-701.
Shabeer, K.P., Satish Kumar, M., Armstrong, M. and Buick, I.S., 2005:
Constraints on the timing of Pan-African granulite-facies
metamorphism in the Kerala Khondalite Belt of southern India:
SHRIMP mineral ages and Nd isotopic systematics. Jour. Geol.,
113: 95-106.
Sharma, R.S., 2010: Cratons and Fold belts of India, Lecture notes in
Earth Sciences, v. 127, Spinger Verlag. 304p.
 192 A. B. Roy / Indian Journal of Geosciences, 66(4): 181-192
Srikantappa, C., Srinivas, G., Basavarajappa, H.T., Prakash Narasimha,
K.N. and Basavalingu, B., 2003: Metamorphic Evolution and Fluid
Regime in the Deep Continental Crust along the N-S Geotransect
from Vellar to Dharapuram, Southern India. In: Tectonics in Southern
Granulite Terrain: Kuppam-Palani Geotransect, M. Ramakrishnan
(ed.), Mem. Geol. Soc. India, 50: 318-374.
Storey, M., Mahoney, J.J., Saunders, A.D., Duncan, R.A., Kelly, S.K.
and Coffin, M.F., 1995: Timing of hot spot-related volcanism and
break-up of Madagascar and India. Science, 267: 852-855.
Subrahmanyam, C., 1983: An overview of gravity anomalies, Precambrian
metamorphic terrains & their boundary relationships in the southern
Indian Shield. In: Precambrian of South India, S.M. Naqvi and J.J.W.
Rogers (eds.), Mem. Geol. Soc. India, 4: 553-565.
Torsvik, T. H., Tucker, R.D., Ashwal, L.D., Carter, L.M., Jamtveit, B.,
Vidyadharan, K.T. and Venkataramana, P., 2000: Late Cretaceous
India-Madagascar fit and timing of break-up related magmatism.
Terra Nova, 12: 220-224.
Unnikrishnan-Warrier, C., Santosh, M. and Yoshida, M., 1995: First report
of Pan-African Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr mineral isochron ages from regional
charnockites of southern India. Geol. Mag., 132: 253-260.
Valdiya, K. S., 1984: Tectonics of the folded fringe of the Indian platform.
th
Reports of Colloquium 05, 27 International Geol. Congr., Moscow,
110-137.
Valdiya, K. S., 1998: Dynamic Himalaya. University Press, Hyderabad,
178p.
Valdiya, K. S., 2010: The Making of India. Macmillan Publishers India
Ltd. 816p.
View publication stats
Valsangkar, A. B., Radhakrishnamurthy, C., Subba Rao K.V. and
Beckinsale, R.D., 1981: Palaeomagnetism and potassium-argon age
studies of acid igneous rocks from St. Mary Islands, In: Deccan
volcanism and related basalt provinces in other parts of the world,
K.V. Subba Rao and R.N. Sukheswala (eds.), Mem. Geol. Soc. India,
3: 265-275.
Vadlamani, R., Kroner, A., Vasudevan, D., Went, I., Tobschall, H. and
Chatterjee, C., 2012: Zircon evaporation ages and geochemistry of
metamorphosed volcanic rocks from the Vinjamuru domain, Krishna
Province: evidence for 1.78 Ga convergent tectonics along the
southeastern margin of the Eastern Dharwar Craton. Geol. Jour.
DOI: 10.1002/gj.2441.
Veeraswamy, K. and Raval, U., 2004: Chipping and breakup along mobile
belts of a supercontinent. Earth Planets Space, 56: 491-500.
Vemban, N. A., Subramanian, K.S., Gopalakrishna, K. and Venkata Rao,
V., 1977: Major faults, dislocations, lineaments of Tamilnadu. Geol.
Surv. India. Misc. Pub., 31: 53-56.
Venkatasubramanian, V. S., 1975: Studies in the geochronology of the
Mysore Craton. Geophys. Res. Bull., N.G.R.I., India, 13: 239-246.
Virdi, N. S., 1987: Northern margin of Indian plate: some litho-tectonic
constraints. Tectonophysics, 134: 29-38.
Warsi, W. E. K. and Molnar, P., 1977: Gravity anomalies and plate
tectonics in the Himalaya. Colloques Int. du CNRS, in Himalaya.
Sciences de la Terra, 463-478.
Yoshida, M., Funaki, M. and Vitanage, P. W., 1992: Proterozoic to
Mesozoic East Gondwana: The juxtaposition of India, Sri Lanka
and Antarctica. Tectonics, 11: 381-391.