Jairam Ramesh questions Environment Minister; claims Aravalli redefinition will fragment it

The Aravalli Range, one of the oldest fold mountains in the world, stretching over 692 km across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi, is not merely a geographical feature; it is a vital ecological backbone for North India. It acts as a natural barrier against desertification from the Thar Desert, a critical watershed for numerous rivers, and a crucial green lung, especially for the heavily polluted Delhi-NCR region. For decades, however, this ancient range has faced relentless pressure from illegal mining, encroachment, and unchecked urbanisation, leading to significant ecological degradation. It's against this backdrop that the recent controversy surrounding the redefinition of the Aravalli Hills emerged, drawing sharp criticism from environmentalists and political figures alike. The core of the controversy lies in a proposed redefinition by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), which suggests restricting the classification of 'Aravalli Hills' to only those landforms with an elevation of 100 meters or more. This seemingly technical change has profound implications. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, in his letter to the Environment Minister, highlighted widespread concerns that such a redefinition would effectively fragment the Aravalli range. By excluding vast tracts of lower-elevation land, which are ecologically integral to the range's overall health and function, the proposal risks opening up these areas for commercial exploitation, including mining and real estate development, without the stringent environmental protections currently afforded to 'hill' areas. Key stakeholders in this unfolding issue include the **Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)**, which is formulating the new definition, possibly aiming to streamline land use policies or address ambiguities. **Congress leader Jairam Ramesh** represents the political opposition and environmental advocacy, articulating concerns about ecological damage. **Environmental activists and NGOs**, such as the Aravalli Bachao Andolan, are crucial voices, mobilising public opinion and legal challenges to protect the range. The **state governments** of Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Delhi are also central, as they are responsible for land administration and will bear the direct consequences of any redefinition on their territories. Finally, **real estate developers and mining lobbies** stand to benefit significantly if the redefinition loosens environmental regulations, potentially leading to increased developmental activities. This issue holds immense significance for India. Ecologically, the Aravallis are a biodiversity hotspot, home to diverse flora and fauna. Fragmentation would disrupt crucial wildlife corridors, exacerbate human-wildlife conflict, and diminish the range's capacity to act as a groundwater recharge zone, impacting water security for millions. For the Delhi-NCR region, the Aravallis are vital for moderating climate and filtering air pollution; their degradation would worsen air quality and contribute to the urban heat island effect. Economically, while development offers short-term gains, the long-term costs of environmental degradation, including health impacts and loss of ecosystem services, far outweigh them. Politically, this redefinition reflects a broader tension between development imperatives and environmental conservation, testing India's commitment to sustainable development goals. Historically, the Aravallis have been a subject of environmental concern and judicial intervention. The Supreme Court of India, notably in its 2004 judgment, had banned mining in specified areas of the Aravallis, emphasizing their ecological fragility. More recently, in 2018, the apex court ordered the demolition of illegal constructions in the Aravalli forest area of Faridabad, Haryana, underscoring the need for strict protection. These judgments highlight a consistent judicial stance favouring the preservation of this critical ecosystem. The proposed redefinition, therefore, could be seen as an attempt to circumvent these existing protections by altering the very definition of what constitutes the protected area. Several constitutional provisions and environmental acts are directly relevant. **Article 48A** of the Directive Principles of State Policy mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife. **Article 51A(g)**, a Fundamental Duty, enjoins every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. The **Environment (Protection) Act, 1986**, provides the central government with powers to take measures for protecting and improving the quality of the environment. The **Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980**, regulates the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. The **National Green Tribunal Act, 2010**, establishes a specialized body for environmental justice. Any redefinition must align with these constitutional mandates and statutory provisions, and ideally, should strengthen rather than dilute environmental safeguards. The future implications are stark. If the redefinition proceeds, it could set a dangerous precedent for other ecologically sensitive areas across India, potentially leading to similar attempts to redefine and reduce protected zones for developmental purposes. It would signal a weakening of environmental governance and could lead to increased legal battles between environmental groups and developmental agencies. Ultimately, the fate of the Aravallis is a test of India's commitment to balancing economic growth with ecological preservation, a challenge central to its long-term sustainable development and the well-being of its citizens.