Green washing: On the Supreme Court, mining in the Aravallis.
The debate on what is Aravalli reveals distrust of govt. on ecological issues.
The government has been dealing with a firestorm on the question of mining in the Aravallis. On November 20, the Supreme Court of India had passed an order prohibiting fresh mining leases in the region until a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM), under central supervision, was in place. The heart of the controversy is that rampant mining, quarrying and deforestation have contributed to groundwater depletion, denuding the ecological sanctity of the region and worsening air quality in Delhi and Haryana. While reluctant to impose a complete ban on mining — the Court’s argument is that it will increase instances of “illegal mining” given that India’s developmental trajectory requires an incessant supply of stone and minerals — it has nevertheless said that except for government-sanctioned mining of ‘critical minerals’, there should be a pause. In doing so, it has acknowledged the central conundrum of mining in the Aravallis: States have limited enforcement capacity and given that this is a source of State revenue, there is a conflict of interest in banning mining. In the last year, the Centre has been actively promoting the Aravalli Green Wall Project. What is unacknowledged in this is that reforestation cannot, in a predictable way, compensate for deforestation. Another intervention by the Court was accepting the recommendations of an expert committee that proposed that only mountains 100 metres or higher above the ‘local relief’ be considered in the Aravalli range. According to a Forest Survey of India estimate (2010), this would mean that 92% of the hills would be out of that ambit. But the Court deferred to the Attorney Solicitor General who argued that not using this definition risked reducing the region considered ‘Aravalli’. The Court did not reason why it opted for one interpretation over the other.
Given that none of this information is in the public domain, everything boils down to trusting one source over the other. Such a system is inimical to environmental policy. What constitutes the Aravallis is a geological and historical question and contour lines should not ordinarily be controversial; but the conversation reveals the trust deficit that the government faces given its generally poor performance in addressing air pollution. The government might cry itself hoarse that this definition of what is and is not ‘Aravalli’ is specific only to the purposes of deciding mining leases and not, say, on permission for tree cutting, residential leases and agriculture. However, without transparency, no amount of afforestation or accusing the Opposition of misinformation will work.