Aravalli should be defined in terms of geology rather than height

Morning Standard

Core Theme and Context

The paired articles respond to ongoing legal, administrative, and ecological debates surrounding the definition and protection of the Aravalli range. They argue that attempts to define the Aravallis by altitude or narrow administrative criteria undermine both geological reality and environmental protection. The broader context is the conflict between developmental pressures—mining, urbanisation, infrastructure—and ecological safeguards in one of India’s most fragile and historically significant landscapes.

At heart, the discussion is about how scientific knowledge should inform environmental governance.

Key Arguments Presented

1. Geological Identity, Not Height, Defines the Aravallis

The central argument is that the Aravallis must be understood as a geological formation, not merely as hills above a certain height. Being among the world’s oldest mountain systems, their ecological and hydrological functions extend beyond visible elevations.

Defining them by height alone, the authors argue, allows large tracts to be excluded from protection despite being part of the same ancient geological system.

2. Ecological Function Over Visual Prominence

The articles stress that the Aravallis perform critical ecological roles:

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

These functions do not correlate neatly with altitude, making height-based definitions scientifically unsound.

3. Legal and Administrative Manipulation of Definitions

A key concern raised is that narrow definitions enable regulatory dilution, particularly in mining approvals, real-estate development, and infrastructure projects. By redefining what “counts” as Aravalli, authorities can legally permit activities that are environmentally destructive.

The argument implies that definitional ambiguity has become a tool of environmental bypass.

4. Scientific Consensus Versus Policy Convenience

The articles invoke geological scholarship and expert testimony to assert that there is no serious scientific dispute about the Aravallis’ antiquity or extent. The tension, therefore, is not scientific but political—between evidence-based conservation and short-term economic interests.

5. Judicial and Governance Implications

The discussion is framed against court interventions and policy debates, suggesting that judicial clarity rooted in scientific understanding is essential to prevent piecemeal erosion of environmental safeguards.

Author’s Stance

The authors adopt a strongly conservationist and science-led stance:

• Unambiguously critical of height-based definitions
• Firm in advocating geological criteria
• Explicitly wary of development-driven reinterpretations

The tone is assertive and corrective, aimed at countering what is seen as deliberate or negligent misrepresentation of scientific facts.

Implicit Biases and Editorial Leanings

1. Conservation-First Bias

The articles prioritise ecological preservation, with limited engagement with:

• Local economic dependencies on mining
• Transitional livelihood alternatives
• Developmental trade-offs faced by state governments

2. Legal-Environmental Framing

There is a strong reliance on judicial and expert authority, which may underplay the complexity of on-ground enforcement and administrative capacity.

3. Limited Social Lens

While ecological and geological arguments are strong, the social dimension—such as displacement, employment, and urban housing pressures—receives less attention.

Pros and Cons of the Argument

Pros

• Anchors environmental governance in scientific evidence
• Exposes how definitional ambiguity can weaken conservation
• Highlights the Aravallis’ role in regional ecological stability
• Strengthens the case for precautionary environmental policy

Cons

• Limited discussion on reconciling conservation with development
• Risks appearing absolutist in a politically contested space
• Does not propose clear administrative mechanisms for implementing geological definitions on the ground

Policy Implications

1. Science-Based Environmental Regulation

Environmental laws and notifications must be grounded in geological and ecological science, not arbitrary administrative thresholds.

2. Strengthening Environmental Impact Assessments

Projects in and around the Aravallis require stricter scrutiny, recognising cumulative and long-term impacts rather than site-specific metrics alone.

3. Centre–State Coordination

Clear, uniform definitions are essential to prevent regulatory fragmentation across states sharing the Aravalli range.

Real-World Impact

• Continued definitional dilution risks irreversible ecological damage
• Groundwater stress and desertification may intensify
• Judicial intervention may increase in the absence of policy clarity
• Long-term costs of ecological degradation may outweigh short-term economic gains

For citizens, especially in NCR and western India, the issue directly affects water security, air quality, and climate resilience.

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper I – Geography

• Mountain systems of India
• Geological evolution and landforms
• Environmental significance of physical features

GS Paper III – Environment

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

GS Paper II – Governance

• Role of judiciary in environmental protection
• Policy formulation based on expert knowledge

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The articles make a compelling case that misdefining the Aravallis is not a technical error but a governance failure. By insisting on geological criteria, they reaffirm that environmental protection must be anchored in scientific reality rather than administrative convenience.

Going forward, the challenge lies in:

• Translating scientific definitions into enforceable policy
• Balancing conservation with livelihood transitions
• Ensuring that development planning internalises ecological limits

The Aravallis’ fate will ultimately test whether India’s environmental governance can rise above short-term pressures and align policy with the deep time of geology and ecology.