Unrest has flared across northern India after the Supreme Court redefined the Aravalli hills – one of the world's oldest geological formations stretching across the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and the capital territory.
According to the fresh parameters, endorsed by the court based on central government suggestions, an Aravalli hill is any geographical feature with a minimum elevation of 100 metres (328 ft) from the surrounding terrain. A cluster of such hills less than half a kilometre of each other, along with the land between them, are deemed to be an Aravalli range.
Ecologists assert that classifying Aravalli hills based on elevation potentially excludes many shorter, vegetation-clad but vitally important hills vulnerable to mining and construction.
The federal government, however, states that the revised definition is meant to tighten controls and establish consistency and not weaken safeguards.
What is Sparking the Demonstrations?
This weekend, peaceful protests occurred in cities including Gurugram and Udaipur, led by community members, farmers, green activists, and, at times, lawyers and political parties.
An organizing member of a key conservation collective commented that the new definition risks undermining the critical role of the Aravalli range in "preventing desertification, recharging groundwater and safeguarding local economies" in the northwestern region.
The lower, scrub-covered hills play a vital role in stopping desert creep, recharging groundwater and sustaining communities according to experts.
"This mountain system must not be categorized by height alone, but by its environmental, physical and weather-related role," said an ecology advocate involved in the movement to preserve the Aravallis.
He added that, globally, mountain ranges are identified by the roles they play, not by arbitrary elevation thresholds.
"Any landform that is structurally a component of the Aravalli system and serves a vital purpose in ecology or preventing desertification should be recognised as part of the range, irrespective of its height."
Protesters are calling for that the government delineate Aravalli areas using scientific criteria, including geography, ecology, animal corridors and environmental durability.
One activist warned that the court's new definition might promote extractive industries, development and business projects, heightening the threat of environmental harm.
Opposition parties have ramped up their censure, cautioning that the new definition could cause serious ecological damage.
One political leader declared that protecting the Aravallis is "inseparable from Delhi's survival." Another leader called the range the state's "lifeline," adding that without it, "the entire area up to Delhi would have turned into a desert."
The Government's Stance
India's central government has attempted to minimize these concerns.
In a recent statement, it asserted the new definition is intended to strengthen regulation and bring uniformity, adding that a single, objective definition was required to oversee extraction consistently across states.
It further stated that the new definition encompasses the entire hill system – incorporating slopes, related features, and connecting zones – clearly safeguarding hill clusters and their connections.
The national environment department clarified it is incorrect to assume that mining will be allowed on all landforms under 100 metres.
The government says areas inside the Aravalli hills or ranges are excluded from new mining leases, while current operations can continue if they adhere to environmentally sound practices.
It noted that mining remains prohibited in core "inviolate" areas – reserved woodlands, environmentally fragile zones, and wetlands – except for certain critical, strategic, and atomic minerals permitted by law.
The minister responsible for ecology indicated only about two percent of the vast Aravalli range could potentially be mined, and only after detailed studies and official approval.
However, many of the demonstrating organizations say that protests will persist and that they are exploring legal options to contest the court's new definition.
