Aravallis are like old parents and hence can’t be abandoned.

Gustakhi Maaf Haryana-Pawan Kumar Bansal

By our enlightened reader Ashok Lavasa ex Election Commissioner of India and ex Secretary Environment Forest &Climate change GOI.

Aravallis are like old parents can’t be abandoned“This is how Lavasa has explained the importance of Aravallis in his article published in today’s The Tribune ,leading English daily of northern India.”Now that the warring factions have returned to their tents at the sounding of the retreat by the honourable Supreme Court’s (SC) order of 29 December, it is time to dispassionately dissect the battle of the Aravallis.

Has the design of the vested interest of turning a mountain into a molehill been defeated or have the saviours of the Aravallis succeeded in making a mountain of a molehill? Will the SC holding its own 20 November order in abeyance, stop the alleged destructive mining that has been the bane of these mountains or are the crusaders fighting a lost cause?

Before we dig deep (pun unintended), let it be acknowledged that the goddess of Justice, hitherto blindfolded, has demonstrated that it can both ‘see’ and ‘hear’ when it is under vehement, largely justified, attack. The SC found itself in the eye of the storm as people believed it turned a blind eye to environment protection, and cleared the way for the Thar desert sands to travel to the national capital, which is unable to carry the burden of its own smog and mortifying air quality.

It may not serve much purpose to ask if the SC reviewed its earlier order in a fit of contrition or it played to the galleries, or if its unprecedented and uncharacteristic concern to public outcry is an apology without remorse? Cynics might argue that the honourable judges want to be seen running with the hare having failed to hunt with the hound.

Even if its suo moto review is seen by many as a judicious move to defuse political tension, the material question is whether it can pave the way for a sensible resolution to a knotty problem. The euphoria of temporary triumph shouldn’t cloud the larger concern for legal consistency and judicial fairness.

The Aravallis are geologically categorized as ‘residual’ mountains, their diminishing caused by millions of years of differential erosion due to the constant flow of water and untrammelled blows of wind. They are among the oldest mountains in the world giving India the distinction of being home to the oldest and the youngest, the Himalayas, called the ‘fold’ mountains. The folds are the result of the upward thrust of colliding tectonic plates, while the residual character is due to their gradual losing of height and denudation. Both are distinct geographical features illustrating natural phenomena that can become catastrophic by anthropogenic activities. The Aravallis have seen wuthering in the face of natural forces. Man, as a vital instrument of Nature, need not hasten that process.

There is a saying that “If the mountain will not come to Mahomet, then Mahomet must go to the mountain.” In modern times, he has been going to the mountain too often, not to worship it, but to bring back with him its riches, the minerals, severely wounding its ecology in the process and upsetting its natural rhythm. The Aravalli hills and range, spread over Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi, contain important metallic/industrial minerals such as copper, zinc, lead, silver, tungsten, rock phosphate, gypsum, mica, asbestos, and bauxite, and building materials like marble, granite, sandstone, and limestone. While there is a complete ban on mining in Delhi, and a miniscule portion is mined in Haryana, the bulk of the extractive mining takes place in Rajasthan.

While the locals rever the mountains and depend on them for their livelihood, mining contractors and governments have found different, sometimes devious, ways of exploiting them through deficient policies and efficient technologies. In the bargain, they provide material so essentially needed for infrastructure development and economic growth.

Landforms are created by nature; their taxonomy is manmade; so are the definitions and delineations. The issue of defining forest and the Aravallis have lingered long because of its inherent complexity. In this case, the SC perhaps grappled with the question of how a sustainable mining plan could be made without first identifying the areas in which it could be permitted and was seemingly persuaded by pragmatism induced by a moral anaesthesia while passing its controversial order.

The concerns outlined by the SC now, in its order of 29 December, are valid. They echo those voiced by the protesters. It is, however, bothersome why they were not kept in view while announcing the earlier order of 20 November. How could the court accept a definition without understanding its impact on the ground, both in terms of the extent of actual area covered by the definition and the effect of the permitted activities on the environment?

It would now be critical to prepare models of possible scenarios before arriving at a workable definition for regulating activities in the mountainous range without violating its ecological integrity. If the recommendations on height, slope and distance made by the Forest Survey of India of 2010 seem too restrictive, let the FSI itself suggest viable alternatives. If there are none, we must learn to live with those restrictions and pay the price of preserving our heritage.

Those with surplus capital, not knowing how to use it imaginatively, find it easy to use it for converting public resources into private goods. It is the duty of the government and regulators to ensure that such public resources are used judiciously for the creation of public goods that lead to public welfare. The popular outrage at the continuing depredation of nature got aggravated by the perceived fallibility of the very institutions responsible for protecting public interest and human rights. People expect the constitutional institutions to go out of the way to protect them against the might of the vested interest that people can’t fight. That is the message, and that possibly will obviate the need for them to come on media to ‘explain’ or defend their judgments. The judges have a right to defend themselves but they have a more fundamental duty to appear fair and just. The admitted ambiguities in the SC’s earlier orders, or the acknowledgment of an error by ‘competent’ judges in the Unnao case, might project the highest judiciary in an introspective mood but doesn’t behove its exalted calling and belies popular expectation based on its past stellar record as a saviour of environment.

Those who work to protect the environment and nurture ecology need a divine sense of altruism because the earth or the trees are incapable of expressing gratitude in words that humans easily understand. They show their benevolence and bounty in ways that sustain life, not please egos.

Aravallis, like old parents, can’t be abandoned because they are weak and withering.”