Why India's Aravalli Hills Are at the Centre of Escalating Demonstrations.

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, accepted by the court based on central government recommendations, an Aravalli hill is any landform rising at least 100 metres (328 ft) above the surrounding terrain. Two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other, combined with the land between them, are considered an Aravalli range.

Environmentalists argue that classifying Aravalli hills based on elevation could leave numerous lower, scrub-covered but ecologically critical hills unprotected from mining and construction.

The central administration, on the other hand, says that the new definition is designed to tighten controls and establish consistency and not dilute safeguards.

Why are People Protesting?

Recently, calm demonstrations were held in cities such as Gurugram and Udaipur, organized by local residents, farmers, environmental activists, and, at times, lawyers and political parties.

An organizing member of a key conservation collective remarked that the new definition risks undermining the critical role of the Aravalli range in "halting desert expansion, recharging groundwater and protecting livelihoods" in the northwestern region.

The lower, scrub-covered hills perform a crucial function in stopping desert creep, boosting water tables and supporting livelihoods as per experts.

"The Aravalli range must not be categorized by height alone, but by its environmental, physical and weather-related purpose," noted an ecology advocate involved in the campaign to save the Aravallis.

He said that, globally, mountain ranges are identified by the functions they perform, not by random height benchmarks.

"Any feature that is geologically part of the Aravalli system and serves a vital purpose in ecology or combating desertification should be recognised as part of the range, regardless of its height."

Protesters are calling for that the government define Aravalli areas using scientific criteria, encompassing geography, ecology, animal corridors 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.

Opposition parties have ramped up their censure, warning that the new definition could cause serious ecological damage.

One political leader said that safeguarding the Aravallis is "fundamentally linked to Delhi's survival." A different official called the range the state's "life-support system," adding that without it, "the entire area up to Delhi would have become a desert."

Official Position

India's central government has sought to downplay these concerns.

In a recent statement, 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 covers the whole mountainous region – including slopes, related features, and connecting zones – clearly safeguarding hill clusters and their linkages.

The national environment department said it is wrong to assume that mining will be permitted on all landforms under 100 metres.

The government states 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 added that mining remains banned in core "inviolate" areas – protected forests, eco-sensitive zones, and wetlands – except for certain essential, national security, and nuclear minerals allowed by law.

The minister responsible for ecology said only about 2% of the vast Aravalli range could potentially be mined, and only after comprehensive assessments and official approval.

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