By Admin 
Political and environmental rhetoric continues regarding the definition of the Aravalli mountain range in Rajasthan. Former Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot has raised the question that why did the current BJP government again support the 100 meter formula which was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2010?
The issue came to light when the Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of the Environment Ministry’s committee on November 20. Gehlot alleges that this could open the way for Aravali to be handed over to the mining mafia and the environmental future of the state could be in danger.
What does the new definition say and why the objection to it?
According to the new definition suggested by the committee of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Aravalli mountain range will be considered as the topography whose height is at least 100 meters or more above the local terrain and a group of two or more hills is present within 500 meters.
Ashok Gehlot says that by implementing this definition, about 90 percent of the Aravalli ranges of Rajasthan will be out of legal protection. According to him, this change will take a large part of the hills out of the Aravalli range, which can boost mining and construction activities. Gehlot described it as extremely dangerous from environmental point of view and said that it will have a direct impact on water, forests and land.
What is the stand of the central government?
Rejecting Gehlot’s claim, Union Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav has said that with the new definition approved by the Supreme Court, more than 90 percent of the Aravalli region will come under the purview of protected area. Senior BJP leader Rajendra Rathore also termed Gehlot’s statement as misleading and baseless.
According to Rathore, the new framework is more strict and scientific than before, which will strengthen environmental protection. BJP says that the opposition is trying to spread fear without facts. On this issue, both the Central and State Governments have assured that there will be no compromise on the conservation of Aravali.
2010 decision and Gehlot’s question
Ashok Gehlot reminded that in 2003, an expert committee had recommended the definition of 100 meters from the livelihood and employment perspective. On the basis of this recommendation, the then state government had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on 16 February 2010, but the court rejected this definition within three days.
Gehlot said that his government accepted the court order and later got the Aravali mapped by the Forest Survey of India. To stop illegal mining, remote sensing, a budget of Rs 7 crore and direct responsibility of the officials was fixed. He raised the question as to why the same definition was brought forward again and whether there is any pressure or conspiracy behind it.