Concept of Ownership of Land

Conflicts of Interest arising from it.

http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2003/494/

"After the independence of India in 1947, the British left behind large acres of land formerly owned by industrial corporations. The Indian government had the idea of distributing the unoccupied parts to landless people. Related to this, in the following years, the Ceiling on Holdings Act, no:XXVII in 1961 was adopted by the Maharashtra State Government with the purpose of "distribution of agricultural lands as best to serve common good". An amendment was made to the 1961 Act 14 years after "to limit landlords' holdings", to secure a still more equitable distribution of land and for the purpose of removing economic disparity and thereby for assisting more effectively landless and other persons".

The campaign of the Adivasis (Original Dwellers) to occupy 'ceiling' land involves documentation, community renewal, advocacy and support for the legal battle. At present, there are over three hundred families on the land being contested, and another two hundred actively involved. Two hundred Adivasis made homeless over land rights

In Australia and lands where the British colonized, Native title and land rights both recognize the traditional rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' to land. However, they are legally very different. One (native title) is based on traditional indigenous ownership of land and waters, while the other (land rights) is a legislative response by parliaments to those traditional rights. How do Land Rights and Native Title differ - Aboriginal Art Online

According to Human Rights Convention

(47). Possessions are things of economic value. They include goods, shares, rights under contracts (including leases), land, rights to run a business, goodwill and damages or other sums awarded by a court or tribunals. The term has a very wide meaning, but it covers only existing possessions and existing legal rights, it does not cover the expectation of a benefit. It covers, for example, the right to receive benefits under a pension scheme, but not the right to inherit property at some point in the future. It covers property not just owned by individuals but also owned by a company or other private body, such as a charity or trade union. Department for Constitutional Affairs Webs

Biblical Times

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/environment.html Genesis 2:15 expects Adam and Adam's descendants to serve and keep the garden. The Hebrew word upon which the translation of keep is based is the word "shamar" and "shamar" means a loving, caring, sustaining keeping. This word also is used in the Aaronic blessing, from Numbers 6:24, "The Lord bless you and keep you." When we invoke God's blessing to keep us, it is not merely that God would keep us in a kind of preserved, inactive, uninteresting state. Instead, it is that God would keep us in all of our vitality, with all our energy and beauty. The keeping we expect of God when we invoke the Aaronic blessing is one that nurtures all of our life-staining and life-fulfilling relationships-- with our family, spouse, and children, with our neighbors and our friends, with the land and creatures that sustain us, with the air and water, and with our God. Three Biblical Principles For Environmental Stewardship

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts About Israel/History/HISTORY- Biblical Times

"After 400 years of bondage, the Israelites were led to freedom by Moses who, according to the biblical narrative, was chosen by God to take his people out of Egypt and back to the Land of Israel promised to their forefathers (c. 13th-12th centuries BCE)."

Aztec Times

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/kislak/kislak-exhibit.html Dominican Priest Bartolomé de Las Casas was a passionate champion of the rights of the indigeno3s`us people of the Americas. Las Casas sailed with Christopher Columbus on his fourth voyage, arriving in Santo Domingo in 1502. He was given a royal land grant including labor of the Indian inhabitants as a reward for his participation in various expeditions. Horrified by the Conquistadors' treatment of the Indians, he returned to Spain in 1510 to take holy orders, determined to devote his life to mission work in the Americas. In 1544 Las Casas was named Bishop of Chiapas, Mexico, where he worked to alleviate the burdens of colonialism on the Indians Online Exhibition The Cultures and History of the Americas The Jay I. Kislak Collection at the Library of Congress (A Librar

Land Rights from Aztec Tradition

As part of the annihilation of the Aztec civilization, after Cortés conquered Montezuma's empire, the Spaniards burned the Aztec archives. Surviving examples of Indian codices are rare. Although this manuscript claims to date from the early 1500s, it is part of the so-called "Techialoyan" land records created in the seventeenth century using old methods to substantiate native land claims with the Spanish regional authorities. These "titulos primodiales" were essentially municipal histories that documented in text and pictures local accounts of important events and territorial boundaries.

Roman Times

Rome became a republic, but it was an aristocratic, and not a democratic republic; that is, the chief power rested not in the whole people, but in a particular class. The plebeians might perhaps have submitted to the government of the patricians, if it had not been exercised in a selfish and oppressive manner. But the patrician rule proved to be as despotic as that of the kings; and a long and fierce struggle ensued between the two orders. As the patricians were generally more wealthy than the plebeians, the conflict became at first a struggle between the rich and the poor, a contest for a more equal distribution of wealth.

The homes of the plebeians were generally in the country. Accordingly, when they were serving in the army, their little farms were neglected, or ravaged by the enemy, their families were driven away, and their property was destroyed. In this way, while serving their country, they were deprived of their houses and fields, and of the means of subsistence, and so were reduced to a condition of poverty and great distress.

The Unequal Division of the Public Land.—

Another cause which kept the plebeians in a state of poverty was the unjust distribution of the public land (ager publicus) which had been acquired in war. This land properly belonged to all the people, and might have been used to relieve the distress of the poor. But the government was in the hands of the patricians, and they disposed of this land for their own benefit; they allowed it to be “occupied,” at a nominal rent, by members of their own order. As long as the land remained public, it could not be sold by the occupants; but the longer the rich patricians retained the occupation of this land, the more they would look upon it as their own property, and ignore the fact that it belonged to the whole Roman people. So that the common people were deprived of their just share of the land which they had helped to conquer.

The Tribunes of the People.—But the most important result of the first secession of the Plebeians was the creation of a new office, that of tribune of the people. In order to protect the plebeians from any further oppressive acts on the part of the patrician magistrate, it was agreed to appoint two tribunes from among the plebeians themselves. These new officers were given the power to “veto”—that is, to forbid—the act of any magistrate which bore unjustly upon any citizen. In order that the tribunes might exercise their authority without hindrance, their persons were made “inviolable,”—which means that they could not be arrested, and that anyone who interfered with them in the exercise of their lawful duty could be put to death. The tribunes were assisted by two aediles, who were also chosen from the plebeian body.

The Agrarian Law of Spurius Cassius.—To remove the unjust distribution of the public land. the effort of the consul Spurius Cassius is very important. This man was both a patriot and a statesman. He loved the people, and he labored to protect their interests. In order to strengthen Rome against her foreign enemies, he first of all made a new treaty with the Latin towns, and also a treaty with the neighboring tribe of the Hernicans.

But the most famous act of Sp. Cassius was the proposal of the first “agrarian law,” that is, a law intended to reform the division of the public land (B.C. 486). It was not his purpose to take away any private land which legally belonged to the patricians; but to make a more just distribution of the land which properly belonged to the whole state. When this law was brought forward, the patricians used their influence to prevent its passage. After his year of office had expired, Sp. Cassius was charged with treason and with the attempt to make himself king. He was tried, condemned, scourged, and beheaded; and thus one of Rome’s greatest patriots suffered the doom of a traitor. But the people remembered Sp. Cassius, and his name was inscribed upon a tablet and placed in the Forum, where it remained for many generations.

Feudal Times

Feudalism is characterized by a hierarchical system of rights, with God and the Crown at the apex and superiors and vassals below them. Title to land under feudalism is therefore qualified by the rights of feudal superiors including the Crown.

Originally designed as a system of government whereby the Crown granted rights to the nobility in return for military and financial services. Over the centuries this arrangement has been gradually converted into a system of private property with the Crown now having limited powers.

Ancient India

Ancient record show that land has been under cultivation in India for more than 5,000 years. In the beginning, tribes exercised control (especially delimitation and defense) over the areas they had taken possession of. This right of the conqueror was the initial from of land right. The tribes allotted to the individual families land for their utilization, usually by means of shifting cultivation.

The village which had individual land rights consisted of a group of families which had rights to the land on the basis of having cleared it. The claims of the families were limited to the cleared land. The un-cultivatable land in the vicinity of the village was jointly utilized, but no claims were made to it. It belonged to the ruler who, in later epochs, also granted permission to cultivate the land.

Thus, at an early period already, there were individual and joint land rights. But landed property, as known in the West, did not exist at all. The rights were a privilege granting inheritable utilization rights and included social obligations, especially taking consideration of the village community's interests.

Because of the need for defense, authority concentrated in the course of time, and thus, a state was formed with one ruler at its head. Costs of governing were covered, at first, with gifts. Soon, however, it became obligatory to deliver a share of the grain yield- in other words-, a tax was introduced. The king was thus only given a right to a share of the yield, but no rights to the land and its utilization. However, he was entitled to all the uncultivated land that lay between the villages.

It was necessary to establish an official hierarchy to collect the taxes. The tax collectors were remunerated by being given a share of the collected taxes and a plot of crown land. This "watan" land was free of tax, inheritable, and transferable, and represented a new form of land rights, namely, land rights on account of the government allotting land to government officials.

In the course of time, the tasks of the central government increased. In this huge country where transport conditions were difficult, possibilities of simplifying administration played an important role. Therefore, the ruler allotted the tax revenue from specific areas to people who had to maintain troops in the provinces, make roads passable, and keep the passes open. At first, the transfer of the right to these taxes was valid only for the time during which these tasks were carried out. Even priests and favorites were provided for in that way, at first for life, later on, all these cessions became inheritable. This right to the land on the basis of the transfer of the right to taxes included taxes only, but not ownership of the land as in the case of 'watan’ lands.

In pre-Islamic times already, there had been a diversification in the land rights. In addition to the land claims of the village community and the farmers based on the right of the conqueror and the first clearer, the ruler's claims to a share of the yield and the uncultivated land between the villages were

Our Times

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/program/episodes/three/conquest.htm

Due to colonialism, many situations have arisen where rights of the colonial power and the indigenous tribes have been in conflict. Australia, New Zealand and Canada are prime examples. We find it in South America and the United States. The gold rush had proved a disaster for the Indians of the Plains.

20th Century Decisions

Right of the Conqueror

http://www.answers.com/topic/right-of-conquest

The right of conquest is the purported right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was sometimes considered a principle of international law from the 16th to the early 20th centuries.

Its defenders state that the acknowledgement of this right is simply an acknowledgement of the status quo, and that denial of the right is meaningless unless one is able and willing to use military force to deny it. Furthermore, they note that granting such a right promotes peace, since it removes the justification for many wars by denying the legitimacy of violating the borders of a nation's de facto area of control. Also, historically strength in battle and fitness to command were not considered separate, (see Trial by Combat, and The Divine Right of Kings.)

The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world (see the Scramble for Africa), the devastation of World War I and World War II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle.

Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.

Palestine Imbroglio

The Treaty of Versailles after the First World War, gave Ottoman Empire territories to the victorious 'Allies' and they presumed the Rights of Conquest in facilitating the resettlement of the Jews, within Palestine and eventually creating the State of Israel. in 1948 The British partitioned India and with it came problems which the modern rulers of these countries have to contend with. The same left over conflicts in Africa and Asia by the departing colonizers, have led to untold misery in these lands.

After the expulsion of Jews from Palestine by the Romans in AD 70, the first rulers who were sympathetic to the plight of the Jews was the British Empire, who made a pact with the leaders of the Zionist movement. in 1917, called the Balfour Declaration, which entitled their repatriation. It was a right the British presumed they had by right of conquest. This was however unique in history, as no other racial group has been repatriated to their native lands, after such a huge lapse of time, and that has brought about such conflicts that it has created massive dislocations of population and the status quo is maintained by powerful patrons.

The chaotic consequences....

The chaotic consequences of these actions are felt till today, and the arguments of the contending parties reflect the selective approach to the land rights. When claim to a land is based on faith and belief, it leads to difference of opinion. Love of one's birth place is natural and emotional and where emotions take the driver's seat, reasoning takes a backseat

Part played by Powerful Nations of a given time ....

Powerful nations take sides, according to their national interests. Since power of nations shift, so too the ground realities. In the year 2006 all can see the realities that exist, dependent on the source of your information. You can not eliminate the personal experiences of the people who are the immediate victims, who will transmit these to their posterity and any amount of propaganda and public relations will not eliminate it.. Like the rumbling power of a hurricane or tsunami, life will change with the shifting of power balance in the world. How does it change? Ask yourself, how is it the British Empire is left with Falkland Islands and Gibraltar as part of their erstwhile empire, where the sun never set. It is left to your imagination, to conjure the combinations that can ensue in this century and the next and where you and your children will be left in the ultimate configuration.

In the light of these events .....

In the light of these events, it is worthwhile to remember the wisdom of the ancient Aztecs and Indians, who believed that the earth was the property of the Creator, and is given on lease to humans to use and look after and should not lay claim for the physical territory. Even in times of Abraham, it was not about the possession of territory but of its use. Lot and he made a compromise. Abraham purchased a plot from the Hittites for the burial of his wife. In modern times, land is a piece of real estate and arguments that are brought to prove 'rights' are based on one's beliefs. Always, the argument of the more powerful prevails and the weak have to give way, without any hope. There has been no instance in history of mankind to show, that a people could be repatriated to their home country after 2000 years. This argument has not been applied for Serbians, Albanians etc, who had been shifted due to old conquests and wars. Populations will always move from place to place and new realities will rise, and wipe out old conventions and treaties. Even after shedding blood and using all one's might, history like a flowing river, will wash out boundaries and cause new realities and reconfigure maps of the lands.

Conclusion

In the light of the present circumstances, live and let live - the idea of peaceful co-existence of people with different beliefs and cultural histories, is to be upheld and re-validated. Disputes which arise, should be solved like intelligent human beings and not by the power of weapons, like in the Middle Ages. Perhaps what the UN Charter should have done was add this into those items they froze. Perhaps the reason why this was not done, was not to tie the hands of the Super Five who were permanent members of the Security Council. Banning this would have also eliminated the source of the vast income that accrues to these powerful nations from the Military Industrial Complexes.

The principle of Peaceful Co-Existence is far better than the rule of the jungle which we see on our televisions now-a-days. The pain is suffered by all sides in the conflict and it is heartrending that they have no way of changing the circumstances. except the intervention of God so that better sense prevails. Shakespeare made the forgetfulness of mankind when he wrote in Marc Anthony's speech, "the good is often interred with their bones."

The weakness of modern democracies:

The weakness of modern democracies, is that the power to rule stems from citizens who are not interested in taking an active and intelligent part in their governance, and leave it to the elected representatives, who themselves being human have their own limitations of understanding and decision making abilities, and can err many times.

I am sure, there will be many who will still want to hold on to their personal convictions, based on their individual life experiences, and I do not wish to dispute the genuineness of their feelings and convictions.