How Many Aravalli Hills Must Fall, Before We Care?
In this gripping analysis, Ashwin Thomas explores how commercial exploitation threatens the Aravalli Hills ecosystem. Discover why recent Supreme Court rulings regarding these crucial mountains have ignited intense protests among environmental activists nationwide.
Mahatma Gandhi once said, “There is enough for everyone’s need, not for everyone’s greed”, and this cannot be more relevant in the present day.
Recently, the Supreme Court formally adopted a ‘scientific’ definition of the Aravalli Hills, a mountain range in north-western India which ranges from Delhi to Gujarat. The hills are crucial for the region’s natural ecosystem, helping to provide water to surrounding regions, keeping Delhi’s air pollution from going completely off the rails and preventing the desertification of the west Gangetic region, for which reason it was designated as a “no-mining zone” by the 1992 Environment (Protection) Act.
The Apex Court, in its latest ruling, ruled that only landmasses 100 meters above surrounding terrain can be termed as a part of the hills, completely neglecting more than 90% of the area which falls below the 100-metre definition. This has subjected a major part of the mountain range to commercial exploitation. The Court’s decision was controversial, especially among the Opposition and environmental activists, who were quick to point out the potential for misuse
In the face of mounting pressure from environmental artists, the Supreme Court has since suspended its November 2025 judgement. A High-Powered Expert Committee was ordered to revisit the definition of the Aravalli Hills and to come up with a new definition, with a focus on ecological continuity rather than just the height. Until further notice, mining leases or renewals within the Aravalli Hills have been prohibited. However, this suspension is temporary and procedural, not a definite reversal of its initial judgement.
The recent controversy surrounding the Aravalli Hills judgment highlights a problem that has been brewing silently over the last few decades: the irreversible environmental destruction caused by the greed of big corporations and the politicians who back them. This is a pattern that has been recurring around the world for the past fifty years, but has become more prominent following the 2024 United States Presidential Election.
Donald Trump, who came to power following the elections, immediately announced his intentions to scale back the United States’ international environmental commitments and decrease regulations on fossil fuel mining and usage. This move was predictable considering his and the Republican Party’s ties with American fossil fuel companies and other big corporations, who seek to benefit from Trump’s Capitalist policies. He then doubled down on his statements by pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and 31 United Nations bodies, most notably, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which organizes climate summits to review and analyse responsibility for a rapidly accelerating climate crisis. With the United States having one of the highest Carbon Dioxide emissions, in totality and per capita, this is alarming, especially considering the snail’s pace at which environmental targets are being met by different nations. This sets a dangerous precedent that will most certainly enable other countries to default on their emissions commitments in a bid to economically compete in an increasingly hostile world.
India, too, is no stranger to the pattern of governmental inaction and public complacency in the wake of an increasingly threatening climate crisis which is slowly unfolding behind the scenes while people and governments remain too preoccupied fighting over petty issues like religion and caste. While India has taken significant steps to meet the emissions limit set by the Paris Agreement and successive climate summits, those steps remain insignificant and piecemeal, aimed at giving the appearance of progress rather than real change. This disconnect between promise and implementation can be seen in the 2024 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), where India ranks 176 out of 180 countries. Even in the latest Climate Change Performance Index, a metric where India stood among the top 10 countries after the Bharatiya Janata Party’s rise to power, India slipped down to the 23rd position, being rated as a “medium-level climate performer” due to its high reliance on coal and other fossil fuels.
Increasing privatization and blatant appeasement of corporate interests have led to the destruction of several crucial natural ecosystems, which are vital not just to the regions around them, but also to the ecological balance of the entire country. This scale of destruction isn’t just anecdotal, but also empirical. According to statistics from the Global Forest Watch, India lost around 2.33 million hectares of tree cover since 2000, a size bigger than the state of Meghalaya, with 95% of the forest cover lost being natural forests, which are 40 times more effective than plantations in combating carbon dioxide pollution and providing other ecosystem services.
This pattern can be seen all around the nation, from deforestations in Saranda and Hasdeo, to the removal of Mangroves in West Bengal, all in the name of “development” and “resource extraction”, conducted by corporations like the Adani group. Designated “protected areas” and “eco-sensitive zones” haven’t been free from this menace either, with almost 24,000 hectares of land, an area twice the size of Chandigarh, being diverted for infrastructure projects.
Granted, mining and industrial development is a crucial prerequisite for economic growth but it cannot come at the cost of the environment. This isn’t just a moral imperative, but also an economic one. Air pollution, which is a negative resultant of such development, alone attributed to an economic loss of around ₹2.7 lakh crores, which accounts for around 1.3% of our GDP. Moreover, a recent survey revealed that India’s GDP would have been 4.5% higher if air pollution had grown 50% slower every year.
While Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economics was largely a myth, trickle-down environmental damage certainly seems to be real. The effects of pollution, global warming, and climate change have devastating consequences on the health and livelihoods of people, with the poorest and marginalised communities having to bear the most amount of burden for a crisis driven by the actions and economic gains of the upper classes. The problem of climate change is not just an issue of convenience for the underprivileged communities, but a question of life and death. People from such communities who are unable to afford air conditioning and private healthcare are prone to life-threatening conditions such as heat strokes and increased exposure to polluted air, often while being compelled to work longer hours outdoors performing physical labour. Climate change can push millions of people into extreme poverty, according to the World Bank, and nearly 80% of multi dimensionally poor people live in areas highly exposed to extreme heat, flooding, drought, or air pollution. This gets amplified for marginalized groups due to limited resources and systemic inequalities. When survival itself, in an increasingly hostile environment, is based on the amount of wealth or capital a person has, climate change ceases to be solely an environmental issue and becomes a crisis that overlaps with systemic inequality and human rights.
Thus, the Aravalli Hills judgement, and the protests around it are not merely isolated events, but part of a broader conflict between the forces of free-market Capitalism and those advocating for the survival of humanity as a whole.
We are now standing at a crossroads, and a choice reveals itself — a choice between a world where more than half of humanity is wiped out, most of whom are underprivileged people, all due to the greed of a few, or a more equitable and healthy world where timely action and corrective justice measures ensured the reversal of a largely man-made crisis. The choice is in the hands of the people, and the only way we, the people of our country and the world, can exercise this choice is by refusing complacency, raising our voices, and confronting the ones in power in order to demand political, economic, and social systems that prioritize not short-term gains, but survival of our people as a whole.
What's Your Reaction?
