Comments on: “The current status of orogenesis in the Central Indian Tectonic Zone: A view from its southern margin” by Bhowmik, S. K. (2019). Geological Journal 54, 2912–2934

Abstract

A three-stage evolution model proposed for the Central Indian Tectonic Zone (CITZ) by Bhowmik is an incomplete model for the zone and has flaws regarding (a) the status of the Tirodi Gneiss vis-à-vis the Sausar Group, (b) the time of granulite metamorphism with respect to the deposition of the Sausar Group, and (c) the style of orogeny, direction of subduction, and position of suture. The author needs to clarify some of the regional structural and stratigraphic relations to support the conclusions drawn in the paper.

Reply to discussion of the current status of orogenesis in the Central Indian Tectonic Zone: A view from its southern margin

“…Mohanty (2020, referred to thereafter as the author), however, has raised objections to the three‐stage evolutionary history of the Central Indian Tectonic Zone (CITZ), centring around: (a) The stratigraphic status of the Tirodi gneiss vis‐à‐vis the Sausar Group, (b) the timing of granulite‐facies metamorphism with respect to the deposition of the Sausar Group and (c) the polarity of plate subduction and the locale of the Central Indian Suture (CIS). While the first two points are primarily linked with the regional stratigraphic framework, with no impact on the key conclusions of two‐stage orogenesis in Bhowmik (2019), I welcome this opportunity to discuss some of the relevant points given in the comment by the author.…”