Protests have erupted across the northern part of the country after the nation's top court issued a new definition for the Aravalli hills – one of the world's oldest geological formations stretching across the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi.
According to the fresh parameters, accepted by the court following central government recommendations, an Aravalli hill is any landform rising at least 100 metres (328 ft) from the surrounding terrain. Two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other, along with the land between them, are classified as an Aravalli range.
Environmentalists argue that classifying Aravalli hills based on elevation potentially excludes numerous shorter, vegetation-clad but ecologically critical hills unprotected from mining and construction.
The federal government, however, says that the revised definition is intended to strengthen regulation and establish consistency and not dilute protections.
The Roots of the Unrest
Recently, calm demonstrations occurred in cities including Gurugram and Udaipur, led by local residents, farmers, green activists, and, in some cases, lawyers and political parties.
An organizing member of a key environmental group remarked that the new definition risks undermining the essential function of the Aravalli range in "preventing desertification, replenishing aquifers and safeguarding local economies" in northwest India.
The lower, scrub-covered hills play a vital role in stopping desert creep, boosting water tables and sustaining communities according to experts.
"The Aravalli range should not be defined by height alone, but by its environmental, physical and weather-related purpose," noted an environmental activist involved in the campaign to save the Aravallis.
He added that, internationally, mountain ranges are identified by the roles they play, not by random height benchmarks.
"Any landform that is structurally a component of the Aravalli system and plays a critical role in ecology or combating desertification should be recognised as a component of the system, regardless of its height."
Activists are demanding that the government define Aravalli areas using scientific criteria, encompassing topography, 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 risk of ecological damage.
Political opponents have ramped up their censure, cautioning that the new definition could cause serious ecological damage.
One political leader said that safeguarding the Aravallis is "inseparable from Delhi's survival." Another leader described the range the state's "lifeline," stating that without it, "the entire area up to Delhi would have become a desert."
What Does the Government Say?
India's federal government has sought to downplay these concerns.
In a recent communication, it said the new definition is intended to strengthen regulation and bring uniformity, noting that a clear, unambiguous definition was required to regulate mining uniformly across states.
It added that the new definition covers the whole mountainous region – including slopes, related features, and intervening areas – explicitly protecting hill clusters and their linkages.
The federal environment ministry said it is incorrect to assume that mining will be permitted on all landforms under 100 metres.
The government says areas within the Aravalli hills or ranges are not eligible for new mining leases, while current operations can continue if they follow sustainable mining norms.
It noted that mining remains prohibited in core "inviolate" areas – reserved woodlands, eco-sensitive zones, and wetlands – aside from certain critical, strategic, and atomic minerals allowed by law.
The minister responsible for ecology said only about 2% of the 147,000 sqkm Aravalli range might be open to extraction, and only after comprehensive assessments and official approval.
However, many of the demonstrating organizations contend that protests will persist and that they are exploring judicial avenues to challenge the court's new definition.
