Ancient range, modern dilemma — Rethinking protection of the Aravallis

Morning Standard

Core Theme and Context

The article examines the long-running legal, administrative, and ecological dispute surrounding the definition and protection of the Aravalli range. It situates the controversy within a broader tension between scientific understanding of ancient geological systems and contemporary regulatory shortcuts driven by urbanisation, mining, and infrastructure pressures.

By combining a historical timeline, legal milestones, and competing policy positions, the piece frames the Aravallis debate as emblematic of India’s struggle to reconcile environmental governance with development imperatives.

Key Arguments Presented

1. The Aravallis Are a Geological System, Not a Height-Based Feature

The central argument is that the Aravallis must be understood as an ancient geological formation, among the oldest mountain systems in the world, whose ecological relevance extends far beyond visible hill height or present-day topography.

Defining them using a height threshold is portrayed as scientifically unsound and administratively convenient.

2. Height-Based Definitions Enable Regulatory Dilution

The article argues that the adoption of narrow definitions—such as the “100-metre rule”—has allowed:

• Mining activities
• Real estate expansion
• Infrastructure projects

to proceed in areas that are geologically part of the Aravalli system but fall outside arbitrary cut-offs. This has led to piecemeal erosion of environmental safeguards.

3. Ecological Functions Are Being Ignored

The Aravallis’ role in:

• Groundwater recharge
• Climate moderation
• Acting as a barrier against desertification
• Supporting biodiversity corridors

is emphasised as the basis for protection. These functions, the article stresses, do not correlate with elevation, making height-based criteria ecologically meaningless.

4. Legal Ambiguity Has Become a Policy Tool

By tracing court cases, expert committee reports, and administrative notifications, the article suggests that definitional ambiguity is no longer accidental. Instead, it has become a tool to balance environmental compliance with development approvals, often at the cost of long-term sustainability.

5. Judiciary and Expert Bodies as Correctives

The piece highlights judicial interventions and expert committee recommendations as attempts to restore science-based environmental governance, though it also notes delays and inconsistent implementation.

Author’s Stance

The author adopts a strongly conservationist, science-led stance:

• Clearly critical of height-based definitions
• Supportive of geological and ecological criteria
• Skeptical of development-first reinterpretations

The tone is corrective and cautionary, aimed at reclaiming environmental policy from administrative convenience.

Implicit Biases and Editorial Leanings

1. Conservation-First Bias

The article prioritises ecological integrity, with limited engagement with:

• Local employment dependence on mining
• Transitional livelihood strategies
• Urban housing pressures

2. Legal–Scientific Framing Over Political Economy

The focus remains on courts, committees, and expert reports, underplaying:

• State-level political incentives
• Fiscal motivations of local governments
• Enforcement capacity on the ground

3. Limited Social Impact Lens

While environmental consequences are well articulated, the social implications—such as displacement or alternative development pathways—are not explored in depth.

Pros and Cons of the Argument

Pros

• Anchors environmental protection in scientific and geological reality
• Exposes how arbitrary definitions weaken conservation
• Integrates law, ecology, and policy history effectively
• Highlights long-term ecological risks of short-term regulatory choices

Cons

• Offers limited roadmap for reconciling conservation with development
• Risks appearing absolutist in a politically complex space
• Does not sufficiently address implementation mechanisms at state and local levels

Policy Implications

1. Science-Based Environmental Definitions

Environmental regulation must be grounded in geological and ecological science, not administrative convenience or visual topography.

2. Strengthening Environmental Impact Assessment

Projects in Aravalli regions require:

• Cumulative impact assessment
• Landscape-level planning
• Inter-state coordination

3. Clear Centre–State Alignment

Uniform definitions and binding guidelines are necessary to prevent regulatory fragmentation across states sharing the Aravalli system.

Real-World Impact

• Continued definitional dilution risks irreversible groundwater depletion
• Desertification pressures may intensify in western India and NCR
• Judicial intervention may increase in the absence of policy clarity
• Long-term economic costs of ecological degradation may outweigh short-term gains

For citizens, the issue directly affects water security, air quality, and urban climate resilience.

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper I – Geography

• Ancient landforms of India
• Geological evolution
• Environmental role of mountain systems

GS Paper III – Environment

• Environmental degradation
• Mining and sustainable development
• Conservation versus development

GS Paper II – Governance

• Role of judiciary in environmental protection
• Evidence-based policymaking

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The article persuasively argues that the Aravalli debate is not about hills versus plains, but about governance versus geology. By relying on arbitrary height-based definitions, policy risks severing environmental protection from scientific reality.

Going forward, the challenge lies in:

• Translating geological understanding into enforceable regulation
• Balancing conservation with just transition for affected livelihoods
• Ensuring that development planning respects ecological limits

The future of the Aravallis will test whether India’s environmental governance can align modern policy choices with ancient ecological wisdom, rather than eroding the latter through administrative shortcuts.