Government is known to use institutions to misinform citizens: Madhav Gadgil

Veteran ecologist Madhav Gadgil's assertion that the government leverages institutions to misinform citizens, specifically citing the Aravalli mining precedent, brings to the forefront critical questions about environmental governance, transparency, and the integrity of public institutions in India. This statement, made during his last conversation with 'Down To Earth,' underscores a deep-seated concern among environmental experts regarding the state's approach to ecological preservation versus developmental imperatives.

**Background Context and What Happened:** The Aravalli Range, one of the oldest fold mountain ranges in the world, stretches across Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, and Gujarat. It plays a crucial ecological role, acting as a 'green lung' for the National Capital Region, a groundwater recharge zone, and a critical wildlife habitat. Historically, the Aravallis have been subjected to intense mining pressure for minerals like granite, marble, sandstone, and building materials. This exploitation has led to severe environmental degradation, including deforestation, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity. Gadgil's allegation suggests that the governmental narrative surrounding Aravalli mining, potentially through official reports or assessments, might downplay its adverse impacts or misrepresent the sustainability of such activities. His specific mention of it being a 'blueprint' implies a systematic approach where successful circumvention of environmental norms or public opinion in one region could be replicated elsewhere.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:** Several entities are intricately involved in this complex issue. The **Government**, at both central and state levels (particularly the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change – MoEFCC, and state mining departments), is a primary stakeholder, responsible for policy formulation, regulation, and enforcement. **Mining corporations and the industry lobby** represent powerful economic interests pushing for continued extraction. **Environmental activists and ecologists** like Madhav Gadgil, along with various NGOs, serve as watchdogs, advocating for conservation and holding authorities accountable. **Local communities** living in and around the Aravallis are directly impacted by mining activities, facing livelihood disruptions, health hazards, and displacement. The **Judiciary**, especially the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT), plays a crucial role in interpreting environmental laws and issuing directives, often in response to public interest litigations.

**Significance for India:** Gadgil's statement holds immense significance for India. Firstly, it highlights the perennial conflict between **economic development and environmental protection**. India, a developing nation, often faces the dilemma of prioritizing resource extraction for industrial growth and infrastructure projects over long-term ecological sustainability. Secondly, it raises serious concerns about **governance transparency and accountability**. If public institutions are perceived to be complicit in disseminating misinformation, it erodes public trust and undermines democratic processes. This can lead to a lack of public participation in environmental decision-making, which is crucial for effective policy implementation. Furthermore, the Aravalli's ecological health has direct implications for the climate resilience of the region, including mitigating air pollution and managing water resources, which affects millions of citizens.

**Historical Context and Constitutional Provisions:** The struggle to protect the Aravallis is not new. The Supreme Court, in its landmark 2004 judgment in *M.C. Mehta v. Union of India*, banned mining in specific parts of the Aravalli hills in Haryana, acknowledging their fragile ecosystem. Despite this, illegal mining and pressure for legal mining have persisted. India's Constitution provides a framework for environmental protection. **Article 48A** (Directive Principles of State Policy) mandates that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country." **Article 51A(g)** (Fundamental Duties) states that "it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures." Most critically, the **Right to Life under Article 21** has been expanded by the judiciary to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. Key legislative instruments like the **Environment (Protection) Act, 1986**, and the **Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980**, provide the legal teeth for environmental governance. The **Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act)** governs mining activities, but its implementation often faces challenges in balancing economic imperatives with environmental safeguards.

**Future Implications:** The implications of such allegations are far-reaching. If the 'Aravalli blueprint' indeed becomes a model, it could lead to further environmental degradation across other ecologically sensitive zones in India. This could exacerbate climate change impacts, threaten biodiversity, and intensify resource conflicts. It also necessitates a stronger role for civil society, independent scientific bodies, and the media in scrutinizing government actions and ensuring transparency. The judiciary will likely continue to play a pivotal role in upholding environmental laws. There's a pressing need for robust, independent Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and public hearings to ensure informed decision-making and genuine public participation, rather than mere procedural compliance. Ultimately, the challenge lies in fostering a governance model that genuinely prioritizes sustainable development, where economic growth does not come at the irreparable cost of ecological integrity and public trust.