Why India's Aravalli Hills Have Become the Epicenter of Escalating Unrest.

Protests have erupted across the northern part of the country after the Supreme Court redefined the Aravalli hills – one of the world's oldest mountain ranges stretching across the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and the capital territory.

Under the new definition, accepted by the court based on federal government suggestions, an Aravalli hill is any landform rising at least 100 metres (328 ft) from the adjacent land. A cluster of such hills within 500 metres of each other, along with the land between them, are deemed to be an Aravalli range.

Ecologists assert that defining Aravalli hills by height potentially excludes numerous lower, scrub-covered but vitally important hills unprotected from quarrying and development.

The federal government, however, says that the new definition is intended to tighten controls and bring uniformity and not dilute protections.

What is Sparking the Demonstrations?

Over the past few days, calm demonstrations took place in cities including Gurugram and Udaipur, led by community members, farmers, green activists, and, in some cases, lawyers and political parties.

A founder member of a key environmental group commented that the new definition risks undermining the essential function of the Aravalli range in "halting desert expansion, replenishing aquifers and protecting livelihoods" in northwest India.

The shorter, vegetated hills perform a crucial function in stopping desert creep, boosting water tables and sustaining communities according to experts.

"This mountain system must not be categorized solely by elevation, but by its ecological, geological and climatic role," noted an ecology advocate associated with the campaign to save the Aravallis.

He said that, internationally, mountains and hill systems are classified by the roles they play, not by arbitrary elevation thresholds.

"Any feature that is structurally a component of the Aravalli system and serves a vital purpose in the ecosystem or combating desertification must be acknowledged as part of the range, regardless of its height."

Protesters are calling for that the government delineate Aravalli areas using scientific criteria, encompassing topography, biodiversity, animal corridors and environmental durability.

A campaigner cautioned that the court's new definition might promote mining, construction and commercial activity, increasing the threat of environmental harm.

Opposition parties have stepped up criticism, warning that the new definition could cause serious ecological damage.

One political leader declared that protecting 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 turned into a desert."

What Does the Government Say?

India's federal government has sought to downplay these apprehensions.

In a recent statement, it said the new definition is meant to strengthen regulation and bring uniformity, noting that a clear, unambiguous definition was required to regulate mining consistently across states.

It added that the new definition encompasses the entire hill system – incorporating slopes, associated landforms, and connecting zones – clearly safeguarding hill clusters and their connections.

The federal environment ministry clarified it is wrong to assume that mining will be permitted 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 sustainable mining norms.

It added that mining remains banned in core "protected" areas – protected forests, environmentally fragile zones, and wetlands – except for certain critical, strategic, and atomic minerals allowed by law.

The Environment Minister said only about 2% of the vast Aravalli range might be open to extraction, and only after detailed studies and official approval.

However, several of the protesting groups say that protests will persist and that they are exploring judicial avenues to contest the court's new definition.