Saving Sariska's Tigers: What Rajasthan Can Learn from Chhattisgarh's Sustainable Mining

Sariska, the wildlife sanctuary that became a model for tiger reintroduction in India, has come under controversy over the 'rationalisation' of its boundaries.

The Supreme Court-mandated Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has already recommended approval of the boundary rationalisation proposed by the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).

However, environmental activists are opposing the decision, fearing that this rationalisation could pave the way for the resumption of mining activities around the Sariska Tiger Reserve.

A Supreme Court order in May 2024 had suspended mining activities within an area of 1 kilometre from the boundaries of tiger reserves, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries. This led to the closure of over 50 mines around Sariska.

Although it remains unclear whether the boundary rationalisation will actually permit mining to resume, protesters believe this move is effectively providing a concealed route for mining to return.

The CEC has justified the rationalisation on the grounds that it would exclude ecologically degraded and human-impacted lands, while incorporating dense, contiguous, and uninhabited forest patches that can support tiger presence.

Why was the rationalisation done?

The Supreme Court took up the issue of Sariska’s boundary rationalisation after an amicus curiae in April 2023 highlighted that a temple within the tiger reserve was attracting large numbers of devotees, creating vehicular pressure on the habitat.

The Court initiated proceedings to address multiple issues related to Sariska. The CEC concluded that Sariska’s Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH), or core area, was fragmented and required rationalisation for more effective management.

The NBWL Standing Committee approved the rationalisation plan on 26 June 2025. This was then endorsed by the Supreme Court-mandated CEC last month.

The rationalisation proposes increasing the CTH from 881.11 sq km to 924.49 sq km, while reducing the buffer area from 245.72 sq km to 203.2 sq km. This involves transferring 90.91 sq km from the buffer zone and excluding 48.39 sq km of hilly, human-impacted forest from the CTH, which will instead become part of the buffer zone.

The CEC states that the decision was based on comprehensive data on tiger occupancy, including camera-trap evidence, ecological connectivity, and forest quality.

Explaining the move, Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) of Sariska, Abhimanyu Saharan, told Swarajya, "Supreme Court recommended rationalisation of the CTH based on tiger breeding patterns. The CEC found that several blocks within the CTH lacked tigers or evidence of breeding, making rationalisation necessary."

Concerns

On paper and by official claims, the rationalisation seems ideal: it expands the core area of the tiger reserve, accounts for key tiger breeding zones and dense forest patches, and excludes regions impacted by human activity.

But the question comes down to why there was human activity in the CTH? Critically, this human activity was predominantly mining, as acknowledged by the committee itself. So, instead of halting illegal mining, authorities appear to have opted to remove these areas from the CTH entirely.

In exchange, they have incorporated over 90 sq km from the buffer zone, which is generally less ecologically developed than core areas, as forest officials tend to prioritise core zone development.

"This move is like taking away 1 bigha of land worth Rs 1 crore and giving 2 bigha land worth Rs 20 lakhs,” a retired Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer and former director of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Sunayan Sharma, was quoted as saying by CSR Journal.

Now, make these newly added core areas suitable for tiger habitat and breeding, substantial restoration will be required, though forest authorities claim they are already well-developed.

Another concern is that Sariska’s buffer area has been shrinking over the years. When it was declared a tiger reserve in 2007, the core area measured 881.11 sq km, while 332.23 sq km of land was kept as a buffer zone.

While buffer zones may not hold the same significance as core areas, it has since reduced by 39 per cent, while the core has grown by only 5 per cent. The overall reserve area has decreased by 7 per cent.

This is despite Sariska now having 48 tigers, exceeding its planned capacity of 40. Ideally, the area should have expanded to accommodate this growth, but the opposite happened.

Tigers Under Threat?

Beyond internal boundary changes, the anticipated alterations outside Sariska’s boundaries are also worrying.

The realignment largely removes the southern and south-western parts from the CTH and adds buffer areas from the north as compensation.

Here are two things to note.

One, on the south of Sariska, villages of Khoh, Palpur, Tilwad, Gordhanpura, Mallana, Doondpuri, Jaisinghpur, and Kalwar could see legal mining resume, as the new boundary moves them beyond the 1 km limit from the CTH.

Second, to the north of Sariska lies the Aravalli range, already suffering from illegal mining that has erased dozens of hills over decades. This raises doubts over whether the shift will truly safeguard the tigers.

Mining around the tiger habitat will lead to deforestation, restrict tiger corridors, and reduce tigers' prey populations by displacing herbivores. Moreover, the increased human presence and transportation pressures will further impact the tiger ecosystem.

Since the mines located south of Sariska primarily extract marble and dolomite, their operations are likely to intensify environmental damage. The use of heavy machinery contributes to noise pollution, while marble processing generates fine dust and slurry that can contaminate nearby water bodies.

Overall, the mine's spoil will destroy aquifers and the disturbance will affect the breeding patterns and natural lifestyle of tigers, which in extreme cases, may compel tigers to leave their habitat or slow down their growth rate.

Given that Sariska lost all its tigers in 2004 and only revived its population through reintroduction from Ranthambore in 2008, environmentalists fear history could repeat itself.

Rajasthan's Poor Track Record

Some may argue that since the Supreme Court allows mining beyond 1 km from protected zones, there should be no concern.

However, as aforementioned, heavy mining machinery and blasting create fine dust and noise that travels far beyond 1 km, and groundwater contamination is also possible.

Another reason Rajasthan has a history of failing to control mining pollution. Being one of India’s largest producers of these minerals, several reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and the State Lokayukta have shown that many operations bypass norms and operate without environmental clearance, worsening air and water quality.

Frequent public health complaints, especially respiratory issues among villagers living near the mines, are a testimony to this fact. People living within 30 kilometres of mines often suffer from bronchitis and lung cancer, which are frequently misdiagnosed as common fever or tuberculosis due to a lack of awareness.

Given that the subsequent Rajasthan governments haven't been able to provide proper healthcare to mining-affected people, it will be a stretch to expect them to act for the environment.

The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) is criticised for poor monitoring and rarely penalising violators. Marble slurry is often dumped untreated into open lands or water bodies due to the absence of a statewide disposal plan.

To sum up, Rajasthan has prioritised economic revenue over environmental sustainability. It neither incentivises low-impact mining technologies nor enforces pollution control measures, and allows mining activities to go unchecked.

Overall, Rajasthan has prioritised revenue over sustainability, offering little incentive for low-impact technologies and allowing unregulated mining to continue.

Chhattisgarh: An Inspiration?

Chhattisgarh, which earns more mining revenue than Rajasthan, despite being a smaller state, demonstrates that profitable mining can be done while increasing the forest cover.

In 2024–25, Rajasthan earned Rs 9,228 crore from mining, while Chhattisgarh earned Rs 14,195 crore. At the same time, Chhattisgarh’s forest cover of 55,812 sq km increased by 684 sq km in 2023, compared to Rajasthan's increase of 394 sq km.

But when compared to the 2021 ISFR data, there is a net decline of 106.75 sq km of Rajasthan's forest cover. Additionally, Rajasthan also reported a decline of 110.65 sq km in forest cover outside the Recorded Forest Area (RFA).

The gap between the Rajasthan Forest Department’s claim that 9.5 per cent of the state’s geographical area is recorded as forest, and the ISFR’s finding that only 4.84 per cent of the area has actual forest cover, is also concerning.

Moreover, since 1980, despite having over 40 per cent of its geographical area under forest cover, Chhattisgarh has diverted only 0.47 per cent of its forest area for mining.

In contrast, Rajasthan, with much lesser forest cover, has diverted a similar percentage of its scarce forest resources, a concerning approach for an arid state.

What Chhattisgarh is Doing Better

Explaining what distinguishes Chhattisgarh, the secretary of state's Mineral Resources Department, P Dayanand, emphasised "phased approach to mining" where, rather than mass clearances, only 5 to 6 per cent of trees are felled each year over a mine’s 40–50-year lifespan.

He gives an example of the Hasdeo Aranya coalfield, where there is approval for the diversion of 1,742 hectares of forest land, but only 80–90 hectares are cleared annually to allow the ecosystem to adapt and regenerate.

Other than this, Chhattisgarh also follows a policy of reinvesting the earnings from mining into affected villages. "It’s a model built on deliberate policy and disciplined execution. We are committed to operationalising our auctioned blocks without compromising our green ethos," Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai said.

For every hectare of forest diverted, 5 to 10 hectares worth of trees are planted at a rate of 1,100 saplings per hectare. The mined-out areas, where mining has been completed, aren't left barren and are instead reclaimed.

The responsibility of ecological restoration is put on the concerned companies.

As per official data, Bhilai Steel Plant has reclaimed 48 per cent of its mined land, while Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Nigam Limited (RRVNL), and South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) have reclaimed just 28 and 16 per cent of mined lands, respectively.

Other than these initiatives, Chhattisgarh also has a natural advantage in its favour. Along with open-cast coal mines, the state also has underground metallic mines, allowing it to maintain forest cover in those areas.

As secretary Dayanand explained, "The underground mining, which covers 12,783 hectares, across 27 mines, leaves the forest canopy untouched. Open-cast mining accounts for just 0.26 per cent of the forest area on 16,000 hectares."

On the other hand, Rajasthan primarily has open-cast mines and quarrying and very few underground operations, leaving has fewer opportunities for such preservation.

Lessons For Rajasthan

Despite these natural constraints, Rajasthan has ample scope to commit to sustainable mining. Whether or not mining resumes around Sariska, and whether or not the tiger ecosystem is put at risk, Rajasthan has much to learn from Chhattisgarh.

The foremost requirement is to stop illegal mining that flouts environmental norms and to adhere strictly to compensatory afforestation, ensuring actual ecological recovery with native species, biodiversity preservation, and soil health restoration.

Like Chhattisgarh, a fixed, transparent percentage of mining revenue should be reinvested directly into long-term ecological restoration projects, especially in degraded arid zones.

Rajasthan’s new mining policy, released in September 2024, plans to assist applicants or concessionaires with forest land diversion and plantation activities. It does not, however, establish definite accountability on them, unlike Chhattisgarh’s framework.

With a 9.4 per cent share from mining in Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP), Chhattisgarh has surpassed traditional mining giants like Odisha and Jharkhand, which get 9 per cent and 5.3 per cent, respectively, of their GSDP from mining.

On the other hand, Rajasthan’s Gross State Domestic Product receives a contribution of less than 4 per cent from the mining sector. Despite this, Rajasthan has compromised far more with the environment to allow rampant, irresponsible mining.

It is not only mining. Local media reports indicate that ongoing solar energy projects in the state are also leading to large-scale deforestation.

This raises a broader question for the state government. Is it serious about the environment, especially when even small patches of green ecosystems are precious for an arid state like Rajasthan?