Unrest has flared across the northern part of the country after the Supreme Court issued a new definition for the Aravalli hills – one of the world's oldest geological formations spanning the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi.
According to the fresh parameters, approved by the court following federal government suggestions, an Aravalli hill is any geographical feature rising at least 100 metres (328 ft) from the adjacent land. Two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other, combined with the land between them, are classified as an Aravalli range.
Ecologists assert that defining Aravalli hills by height potentially excludes many shorter, vegetation-clad but vitally important hills vulnerable to mining and construction.
The federal government, on the other hand, maintains that the new definition is intended to strengthen regulation and establish consistency and not weaken protections.
The Roots of the Unrest
This weekend, peaceful protests were held in cities including Gurugram and Udaipur, organized by local residents, farmers, green activists, and, in some cases, lawyers and political parties.
An organizing member of a key conservation collective remarked that the new definition risks undermining the essential function of the Aravalli range in "halting desert expansion, recharging groundwater and protecting livelihoods" in northwest India.
The shorter, vegetated hills play a vital role in stopping desert creep, boosting water tables and sustaining communities according to experts.
"This mountain system must not be categorized by height alone, but by its ecological, geological and climatic purpose," noted an ecology advocate associated with the movement to save the Aravallis.
He pointed out that, globally, mountains and hill systems are classified by the roles they play, not by random height benchmarks.
"Any landform that is structurally a component of the Aravalli system and serves a vital purpose in the ecosystem or preventing desertification must be acknowledged as a component of the system, regardless of its height."
Protesters are calling for that the government define Aravalli areas using scientific criteria, encompassing topography, biodiversity, wildlife connectivity and environmental durability.
One activist warned that the court's new definition could encourage extractive industries, development and business projects, heightening the threat of environmental harm.
Political opponents have stepped up criticism, cautioning that the new definition might lead to serious ecological damage.
One political leader declared that safeguarding the Aravallis is "inseparable from Delhi's survival." A different official described the range the state's "lifeline," stating that without it, "the entire area up to Delhi would have become a desert."
Official Position
India's central government has attempted to minimize these concerns.
In a official release, it said the new definition is meant to bolster governance and bring uniformity, adding that a single, objective definition was needed to regulate mining consistently across states.
It added that the new definition encompasses the whole mountainous region – incorporating slopes, related features, and connecting zones – clearly safeguarding hill clusters and their connections.
The national environment department said it is wrong to presume that mining will be allowed on all landforms under 100 metres.
The government says areas inside the Aravalli hills or ranges are not eligible for new mining leases, while existing ones can continue if they adhere to environmentally sound practices.
It added that mining remains prohibited in core "inviolate" areas – reserved woodlands, environmentally fragile zones, and wetlands – aside from certain critical, strategic, and atomic minerals allowed by law.
The minister responsible for ecology indicated only about two percent of the 147,000 sqkm Aravalli range could potentially be mined, and only after detailed studies and official approval.
However, several of the demonstrating organizations say that protests will persist and that they are considering judicial avenues to challenge the court's new definition.
