Deuteronomy
and Human Rights
Submitted
to:
Dr. Daniel J. Muthunayagom Presented
on: 14/3/2014
Submitted
by:
Ajilal E. S, Vinod Shemron S. (B.D III) and Arvind Theodore (B.D IV)
Introduction:
Land
ownership can be a fundamental source of capital, which opens personal credit
markets, leads to investments in the land, provides a social safety, and
transfers wealth to the next generation. Beyond the potential for a higher
income, land provides a valuable source of shelter, food and income in times of
hardship, and a family's land can be the last available resort in the instance
of calamities. Moreover, access to land affects a wide range of fundamental
human rights. In both urban and rural areas, individuals rely up on the
accessibility of sufficient plots of land for shelter and the availability of
resources.
In rural areas in particular, the realization of the right to food
is closely connected to the availability of arable land. Additional rights,
including the right to water, the right to health, the right to work, are all
tied to access to land. Identity, particularly for indigenous groups, is also
tied to land. In some domestic contexts, recognition of citizenship is also
attached to ownership of land, limiting the ability of landless individuals to
travel and participate in the political process[1]. We as a group, in the
form of this paper wish to present to you the importance of land in the ancient
times and how ‘land’ can be seen today, as a human rights issue and how and
what ‘land’ is in the Indian context. In the conclusion, we see how land and
human rights as being closely related in the Deutronomic code.
What
is Land?
The answer to what the land is is to be found in the
Old Testament, especially in the Hebrew terms that denote the land. There are
three main terms as follows:
a)
Eretz:
In the English Revised Standard Version (RSV), it is translated 1620 times as
“land”, 660 times as “earth”, 107 times as “ground” and 83 times as “country”.
This word “eretz” is used in various
forms as to denote the whole of the earth or a specific geographical area such
as “the land of Ararat” (2 Kings 19:37), or “the land of the Kenites” (Genesis
15:18-19). In the latter example the term “eretz”
has a political connotation, referring to political boundaries and nations.[2]
b) Adamah:
It is also rendered by “land.” In the English (RSV) “adamah” is translated 105 times “land”, 67 times “ground”, 37
times “earth”, 6 times “soil” and 2 times “country”.
“Adamah”
is not a political term such as “erets”.
It often designates the agricultural land that can be utilized for farming
purposes, in contrast to “midbar”
meaning ”wilderness” or “desert”. As such, “adamah”
is usually owned by a person (head of household) or group (e.g., “your/their
land,” (Deut. 7:13). God’s ultimate ownership of “adamah” is assumed and expressed (cf. Isa. 14:2; Hos. 9:3; Josh.
22:4). Israel possessed “adamah” by
virtue of God’s gift (Deut. 7:13).[3]
c) Sadeh:
The word means “field”. This term is also used in different ways to indicate an
open field (Num. 19:16; 2 Sam. 11:11; Ez. 29:5. 32:4; 33:27), or enclosed field
(Num. 22:23 and 24; Prov. 24:30). The idea of “sadeh” included uncultivated area or forest (Genesis 27:5) and
cultivated area (Ruth 2:2; Job 24:6; Ps. 107:37). “Sadeh” is further used to indicate grazing area such as in Gen.
34:5; Exod. 9:21; Num. 22:4. The parts that were called “sadeh” in the Bible could be bought by individuals (Jer. 37:6,
etc).
Nature
and Characteristics of Land:
a) Land
as Gift: Land is a gift to the people from
Yahweh. Brueggemann says that Israel did not take the land by power or
stratagem, but by the spoken word of Yahweh. The land is different when it is
given in speaking and received in listening. It is not just an object to be taken
and occupied. It is rather a party to a relation. It is a covenanted land and
serves as a nourishing space.
b) Land
as Good: The land is good (Deut. 4:21-22;
8:7-10), a land flowing with milk and honey (6:3 and 11:9). The land matches
the word that gave it – Yahweh. It fulfills every-anticipation of the
wilderness: water-brooks, fountains, springs; food-wheat, barley, vines, fig
trees etc; minerals-iron, copper and so on. The good land is a gift from this
magnanimous landowner.[4]
c) Land
as Historical Remembrance: Land can be a place
for historical remembrance, for action that affirms the abrasive historicity of
our existence and that was also the case with the Israelites. The land reminded
the people of their history and how Yahweh had rescued them from slavery and
gave them a life that they can start afresh. The Land reminded the people of
Yahweh’s blessing and faithfulness.[5]
Land
Rights:
Deuteronomistic historian affirms
that each tribe or every member of the community had a basic right to possess
some portion of the land given by God. Gottwald believes that during the tribal
social organization, the greatest concern was that the land will not be
alienated from a family of “clan”.[6]
Both tribes and clans were represented. During the distribution, land was
apportioned by casting lots ‘before the Lord’ (Josh. 18:6) and it was made
clear that Yahweh was responsible for allocating to each tribe the portion of
land it was to possess.[7]
Each tribe has the right to hold land that has been allocated by Yahweh and Yahweh
guarantees it and holds responsible for its original allocation. Habel
understands that the book of Deuteronomy supports the rights of each tribe,
ancestral family and ancestral household to holding a property of the land
through divinely approved lot in Yahweh’s land. Deuteronomy emphasizes that a
land mark shall not be removed, since it was given by Yahweh.[8]
Ownership
of Land:
Deuteronomic History claims that
Yahweh is the owner of the Land who himself allocates it to the tribes of
Israel. The Israelites have been allocated the land by Yahweh as promised and
therefore the land and Israel belonged to each other. By possessing some
portion of the land in Yahweh’s land, every member of the family holds a share
in Yahweh.[9]
Importance
of Land:
a) Dietary
Needs: One of the importance and primary
functions of land for humans is to provide food. This prosaic fact underlies
much of the social and political dynamic which makes up all human history. The
diet of human beings differs from culture to culture and from period to period;
however, it must always include certain various basic ingredients that sustain
life. People depended on land for their food and this in turn gave the needed
energy and strength to carry out life’s responsibilities.[10]
b) Source
of Wealth: If a person owned a land, that
person was considered as a ‘wealthy’ person and maintained a considerable
amount of reputation and status in society. A person owning a land was able to
pay taxes. The people were interested in owning land because civic privileges
depended on the same.[11]
c) Land
being a fundamental of life: Throughout the
Old Testament, we see land as one of the fundamentals of life. The vast
majorities of the people of Israel were agriculturists and lived off the land.
It is the property which is handed on from generation to generation as
symbolized by the family tomb. It provides basic foundation for the life of
Israel’s peasant community.[12]
d) Land
giving Guaranteed Satiation: The land gave
the people a sense of guarantee that they can rely upon. This security did not
dull their memory but gave the people a sense of living and owning something
that can sustain their existence and therefore the land served as a guaranteed
satiation.[13]
Land and the Covenant:
One of the
central themes in the Old Testament is the land. In the OT and Judaism, the
notion of the ‘promised land’ and descendants to populate it is unparalleled in
its importance for understanding of the covenant. In four particular passages,
Genesis 12: 1 – 3; 13: 14 – 17; 15: 18 – 21 and 17: 7 – 9, there are two themes
which are clear. Abraham was to receive land as an everlasting possession and
this promise is directly related to the covenant. The Promised Land is always
described as a good land, but while it is described to be so, it will also
require faith.[14]
Land is connected to the covenant in every reiteration of the promise. However,
the land is not an ownership that may be benefited from without the reference
to God. This land is a gift from God that comes with expectations for covenant
justice and holiness.
Land and God:
There is one underlying theme which explains God’s
interest in land. It is God, and not Israel who own the land. Israel is to hold
this land loosely, because it is God who decides the tenure of its ‘tenants’.
The OT supports this notion of God’s ownership of the land by stating that the
land was distributed by God through lots (Num 26: 55). The harvests of Israel
were understood in light of the God’s ownership of the land. The firsts crops
and animals belonged to God, and so were offered as a sacrifice to God (Lev 27:
30-33; Deut 14: 22; 26: 9-15). The command to observe the Sabbath was followed
not only by Israel, but also by the land itself (Lev 25: 2). The land is almost
personified here, as though it were living in a relationship with God and also
under covenant commitments. In Deut 12: 9, the land is referred to as a place
of rest for Israel. It is also referred to as a place of rest for God, a place
where God’s presence dwells, as seen in Pss. 95: 11 and 132: 8.[15]
Land
and Cult:
Israel’s cultic life served to maintain the people’s
hold on the land and to protect the land from spoliation. For the maintenance
of the purity and health of the land, careful regulations were provided in the
Israelite law. The Sabbatical Year assures that the land will have its Sabbath
in every seven years (Exod 23: 10-11; Deut 15). The Jubilee Year also engaged
release from debts and the restoration of family property to its rightful owner
(Lev 25). The land was to be protected in times of warfare (Deut 20: 19-20),
from the defilement of excrement (Deut 23: 12-14) and also from the defilement
that came from homicide (Deut 21). The community’s worship, observance of
dietary laws and its ever continuing respect for God’s presence in the land were
all focused on the ensuring of the continued health and productivity of the
land. The observance of the Sabbath, the three major festivals, the sabbatical
and jubilee years and the other feasts and fasts sustained the health of God’s
land.[16]
Access to Land and the Human Rights
The problem of
rural landlessness continues to increase as land in rural areas comes under
population growth, fragmentation, land use conversion, environmental
degradation, and the impact of natural disasters. Without secure land rights,
individuals and communities live under the constant threat of exile, impacting
a range of fundamental human rights. Tenure security in land or secure usage
rights in land, in the form of formal legal, customary or religious rights, can
provide more predictability and secure access to fundamental rights, including
to food, housing, water, and health. The right to housing and the prohibition
against forced evictions, both of which relate to land access, have been
defined in numerous international documents, but the right to land, and the
broader implications of access to land in the international human rights
framework, remains vague[17].
Land Rights in the International Legal Framework
The necessity of providing access to land in order to facilitate the
realization of human rights has been considered in several international
principles and interpretive documents. But no international right to land is
explicit in the international legal framework. Moreover, the responsibility of
states towards individuals and land access has not been given sufficient
attention. However, a review of the international human rights framework as it
stands makes clear that while not wholly defined, land rights are invoked in a
number of key areas, suggesting that further consideration by the international
community is necessary[18].
Indigenous rights and women’s rights
Rights to land have been developed in two key areas of international
human rights law, the rights of indigenous people and the rights of women. Land
access and use is frequently tied to the spiritual, cultural and social
identities of peoples. As such, land rights have been more fully developed in
the field of indigenous rights. Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples, which was accepted by the International Labor Organization in 1989, is
legally binding on States Parties and the only binding international instrument
related to the rights of indigenous peoples. The Convention establishes the
right of indigenous peoples in independent countries to “exercise control, to
the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development,”
in a number of areas. The Convention includes a section on land, and requires
States Parties to identify lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples
and guarantee ownership and protection rights. In essence, the “measures shall
be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned
to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have
traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities.” The
Convention also requires the provision of legal procedures to resolve land
claims establishes rights over natural resources, protects against forced
removal.[19]
Relationship with other
rights
The right to private property was a crucial
demand in early quests for political freedom and equality, and against feudal
control of property. Property can serve as the basis for the entitlements that
ensure the realization of the right to
adequate standard of living and it was only property owners which were
initially granted civil and
political rights, such as the right
to vote. Because not everybody is a
property owner, the right to work was enshrined to allow everybody to
attain an adequate standard of living.[20] Today discrimination on the basis of
property ownership is recognized as a serious threat to the equal enjoyment of
human rights by all and non-discrimination clauses in international human rights instruments frequently include property as a
ground on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited.
The protection of private property may come into
conflict with economic, social
and cultural rights and civil and
political rights such as the right to freedom
of expression. To moderate this right to property is commonly limited to
protect the public interest. In addition many states maintain systems of
communal and collective ownership. Property rights have frequently been
regarded as preventing the realization of human rights for all, through for
example slavery and the exploitation of others. Unequal distribution of wealth
often follows line of sex, race and minorities, therefore property rights may
appear to be part of the problem, rather than as an interest that merits
protection. Property rights have been at the centre of recent human rights
debates on land reform, the return of cultural artifacts by collectors and
museums to indigenous peoples, and the popular sovereignty of peoples over
natural resources.[21]
Indian Constitution
and Land Rights
The Indian Constitution does not
recognize property right as a fundamental right. In the year 1977, the 44th
amendment eliminated the right to acquire,
hold and dispose of property as
a fundamental right. However, in another part of the Constitution, Article 300
A was inserted to affirm that no person shall be deprived of his property save
by authority of law. The result is that the right to property as a fundamental
right is now substituted as a statutory right. The amendment extended the power
of the state to appropriate property for social welfare purposes. Indian
experiences and conception of property and wealth have a very different
historical basis than that of western countries. The fact the present system of
property as we know arises out of the peculiar developments in Europe in the 17th to 18thcentury and
therefore its experiences were universally not applicable. A still more
economic area in which the answer is both difficult and important is the
definition of property rights. The notion of development of land and its value
seems to be the hidden reason why the right to property is suddenly much
contested throughout India today and why the state is coming up unexpectedly
against huge resistance from unexpected quarters in attempting to acquire land
in India[22].
The right to property under the
Indian constitution tried to approach the question of how to handle property
and pressures relating to it by trying to balance
the right to property with the right to compensation for its acquisition
through an absolute fundamental right to property and then balancing the same
with reasonable restrictions and adding a further fundamental right o
compensation in case the properties are acquired by the state. This
was exemplified by Article 19, 1.(f) balanced by Article 19(5) and the
compensation article in Article 31. This was an interesting development
influenced by the British of the idea Eminent Domain but overall it struck an
interesting balance whereby it recognized the power of the state to acquire
property, but for the first time in the history of India for a thousand years
or more, it recognized the individual’s right to property against the state[23].
While access to land most obviously
affects the underlying rights to housing, food, and water, there are additional
rights within the international framework that are impacted. The right to work,
which “includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by
work which he freely chooses or accepts,” often depends upon access to
resources. In countries that are largely rural and where industry is not
developed, land as a resource is often a precondition to work. Similarly,
insofar as land access impacts the availability of food and water, the right to
the highest attainable standard of health can be affected by the condition of
landlessness. Moreover, the displacement from lands of indigenous peoples in
particular can deny access to culturally specific sources of nutrition and
medicines, having a detrimental effect on their health.
Land
Rights and Justice from Deuteronomy
The Ideology of the land as a grant
supports the rights of the invading people to occupy the land by divine sanction. A divine promise to
Israel’s ancestors, a divine demonstration of conquering might and a divine
gift of the good land all confirm Israel’s entitlement to the land. This right
however is conditional. Israel must obey the laws of the proposed polity for
the land or face losing the land. These land rights are grounded not in some
ancient or sacred affinity with the land but in a treaty that prescribes the
conditions for holding the land, The Israelites have no natural right to the
land, only a promise of tenure if they are faithful vassal people. Canaan is
territory under treaty; the land grant is conditional
By contrast, the rights
of the original Canaanite inhabitants are totally dismissed and their culture
negated. They are supposed to be ex terminated. This ideology ignores the
historical reality that much of Canaan’s culture persisted in Israel and that
many of the indigenous people of Canaan became a part of Israelite nation. The
vision in Deutronomic is of a nation purged by trials in the wilderness and
uncontaminated by the ways and ideally by any presence of the indigenous people
of the land. The Canaanites have no rights to land and apparently no right to
justice.
The elevation of
Levites to a position of power, inspire of their landless status, such as that
ultimately there is a higher concern than mere entitlement to land in
Deuteronomy. The Levites have YHWH rather than the land as their entitlement
(nahalah).This special entitlement gives Levites power and status. There are
those ideal Deutronomistic societies; however who have neither land nor status.
Any Canaanite who happen to survive the wars of YHWH is destined to survive as
a slave labor with no obvious rights to power or property (Deut: 21:
10-11).Women captured in the war may be taken as wives and will be dismissed if
they are not suitable. Although they are not suppose to become slaves, they are
nevertheless dishonored women with no standing or property (Deut 21: 10-14). Peasant
landholders have entitlement to their individual property by virtue of divine
allocation in the distant past. This allocation is explicitly designated a
nahalah, A separate divine entitlement within the land as YHWH grant to Israel
(19:14), the family nahalah is a discrete position for the total land as
Israel’s nahalah.
To protect the rights
of the family to its entitlement the Israelite ancestors set up boundary stones
to mark borders of the property. In the land grant ceremony at mount Ebal, a
curse is invoked on any who dare to remove these boundary markers (Deut 27:
17). These laws enshrine the right of ancestral families of Israel to property
they believed to belong to them under ancient divine land grant. No
redistribution of the land to the landless in the society is ever envisaged. These
land holders however are expected to take care of the needs of the landless
that have no land rights. A portion of the harvest is to be left for widows,
orphans, aliens 24 19-20. The poor and the landless laborers are to be paid
wages 24-14. Those without land rights are expected to find justice in the
gates (24:7-10). Israelites are to remember that they too were once landless
slaves. If the judges of the community do not decide justly in such cases
Israel will lose the land (16:18-20).
This justice for the
landless clearly means that those without power and property should not be
exploited. There is no principle at work; however that suggests that the
landless being Israelites within the land given as a nahalah, should themselves
have a family or personal land entitlement. Ultimately inspire of the blessings
of YHWH that produce a society free of poor and presumably landless families
(15:4), the reality is that there will always be “Poor in the midst of the land
(15:11)”. This means that Israelite families with land and wealth are to show
concern for a range of groups in society who are landless or destitute. These
include slaves, debt slaves, servants and laborers (15: 7-18).[24]
Clearly those families
with traditional land entitlements have both status and responsibility in the
land. Those without land entitlements are dependent on the goodwill of the
land. Justice in this context doesn’t mean the redistribution of the land but
rather preventing exploitation of the landless. At the same time this
expression of justice within the structures of Deutronomic polity means that
the landless poor are made dependent on the land peasants and elite for
survival and security.
Conclusion
Land is central, if not the central
theme of biblical faith. It is no news to us that land has always been integral
element in human life as well. According to Israelite family property rights,
each family should own a piece of land in order to have their representation in
the society. Therefore human rights are indivisible, interrelated and
interdependent, and land is a cross-cutting issue. In the Deutronomic code, we
see the establishment of the land rights and justice as a reinforcement of the
indebtedness of Israel to YHWH. We also
see that land is promoted as the charter of Israel’s rightful entitlement to
the land, and it also serves to justify the disposition of the original
inhabitants of the land and negate their rights.
Bibliography:
·
Gottwald, N.K. The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary
Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
·
Habel, N.C. The Land is Mine: Six Biblical Land
Ideologies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.
·
Gottwald, N.K. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the
Religion of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 BCE. New York: Orbis Books, 1979.
·
Davies, E.W.
“Land: Its Rights and Privileges” in the The
World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political
Perspective. Edited by R.E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
·
Pastor, Jack. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine. London:
Routledge, 1997.
·
Wittenberg,
Gunther H. “The Significance of Land in the Old Testament”, in the Journal of Theology for Southern Africa.
·
Burge, Gary M.
“Land” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of
the Bible. Edited by Katherine Doob Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abington Press,
2008.
·
Burge, Gary M.
“Land,” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary
of the Bible. Edited by Katherine Doob Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abington
Press, 2008.
·
Harrelson,
Walter. “Land,” in Mercer Dictionary of
the Bible. Edited by Watson E. Mills. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990.
·
Brueggemann,
Walter. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise,
and Challenge in Biblical Faith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
·
The United
Nations and Human Rights, United Nations, New York, 1973.
·
Gudmundur, Alfredsson. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A common standard of achievement.
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1999.
·
Janvry, Alain
De Access to Land and Land Policy
Reforms, in Access to Land, Rural Poverty and Public Action; (Oxford University Press 2001
Webliography
·
http://www.ilo.0rg/ilox/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C169
(accessed on 10th February 2014).
·
www.landnotes.in/indian_Constitution_and_Land_laws
(accessed on 10th February 2014).
[1]Alain De Janvry.
Access to Land and Land Policy Reforms, in Access to Land, Rural
Poverty and Public Action; (Oxford
University Press 2001). pp26-33.
[2] N.K.
Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A
Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 45
[3] N.K.
Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A
Socio-Literary Introduction, 45
[4] N.C.
Habel, The Land is Mine: Six Biblical
Land Ideologies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995),43
[5] Walter Brueggemann, The Land:
Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2002), 51
[6] N.K.
Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh: A
Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 BCE (New York:
Orbis Books, 1979), 158
[7] E.W.
Davies, “Land: Its Rights and Privileges” in the The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and
Political Perspective ed. by R.E. Clements (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989), 358
[8] N.C.
Habel, The Land is Mine: Six Biblical
Land Ideologies, 33
[9] N.C.
Habel, The Land is Mine: Six Biblical
Land Ideologies, 59-60
[10] Jack
Pastor, Land and Economy in Ancient
Palestine (London: Routledge, 1997), 6
[11] Jack
Pastor, Land and Economy in Ancient
Palestine, 1-2
[12]
Gunther H. Wittenberg, “The Significance of Land in the Old Testament”, in the Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 58-60
[14] Gary M. Burge “Land”
in New Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The
Bible, ed.by Katherine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abington Press, 2008),
570-571.
[15] Gary
M. Burge, “Land,” in New Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by Katherine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville:
Abington Press, 2008), 572.
[16]
Walter Harrelson, “Land,” in Mercer
Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by Watson E. Mills (Macon: Mercer University
Press, 1990), 499-500.
[17] Alain De Janvry. Access to Land and Land Policy Reforms, in
Access to Land, Rural Poverty and Public Action; (Oxford University Press 2001). Pp35- 37.
[18] http://www.ilo.0rg/ilox/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C169
accessed on 10th February 2014.
[19]http://www.ilo.0rg/ilox/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C169.
[20] Alfredsson, Gudmundur. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
A common standard of achievement.
(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1999) p. 533.
[21] Alfredsson, Gudmundur; The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A common standard of achievement. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1999)
p. 360.
[22]www.landnotes.in/indian_Constitution_and_Land_laws
[23] Ibid.
[24] N.C.
Habel, The Land is Mine: Six Biblical
Land Ideologies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995),52
