![](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEhaYTuxrR7EPM3bjysj3hOPslX5SEYikC2ERhc-Il7spf1SFaQYqgLvlCM4G6aGyj645txM8jFAggHbDcNJA6npn_csLvLOIwNydUE9tH2NQh4blc0gp3CcBXCEEcB-N1PVGcjUUDbvJZjN9ZIRSs5czPhtemV76XLFOLwcAg2ATx-dMTaViyYxamYASTtN\/s640\/9517797965_6a8a9e8f2b_z.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nWriting an analytical legal essay is a formidable task. Even a thought about it evokes a Despite the lofty title of this post, which might hint Quick reminder: <\/span><\/i>no one (especially not me) can give you a (Sidenote: while this draft is focused on the legal essay, To me, essay, and writing competitions are fun. But if I It wasn\u2019t so easy, however. The challenge was that, Anyway, the crux is that these motivations led me to consistently <\/i>partake in essay\/writing As cliche, as it may sound, there is no straight-jacket Remember, God is in the details. So focus on (which I I generally write on issues I am deeply involved with, Keeping all these in mind, I then carefully examine (or For example, in the <\/span>recent<\/span><\/a><\/span> ATRIP essay competition, I used their guideline document to bolster my Once all this is done, I discuss my initial claims\/ideas As I Another Anyway. The next part is structuring the essay. I do this in five So, the five aspects I refer to are Hook, Gap, Methodology, Claims, and Implications.<\/i> This, I learned Let me briefly share and explain what I mean by a E.g., in this <\/span>post<\/span><\/a><\/span> where I extended the discussion broached Ideally, I\u2019d prefer to have all these five components in In the following sections, these components should aid the Let me exemplify this. If I were to write an essay on Mob First of all, avoid writing very long sentences with words E.g., I\u2019d avoid using a sentence like this: \u201cI feel the
\nflurry of questions- What should be the topic of the essay? What
\ncompetition\/journal\/blog should\u00a0 I write
\nit for? Where to start? What should be the structure of the essay? Attempting
\nto answer the perennial stream of such questions, I bring to you a guest post
\nfrom a dear friend and a prolific writer, Lokesh Vyas. Sharing his last name
\nwith the author of the great Indian epic- Mahabharat, Lokesh is a regular
\ncontributor to IP blogs like SpicyIP and IPRMENTLAW. He has also won
\nmultiple prestigious essay competition including the inaugural edition of the
\nProf. Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition, and the ATRIP Essay Competition, 2023.
\nLokesh is currently pursuing his doctorate at Sciences Po, Paris<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nHow to Write Essays For Writing Competitions: I Don\u2019t Know; Just sharing my thoughts<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
\nthat I’m some kind of sage (an \u201cessay-sage\u201d of sorts) or that my thoughts are
\nunignorable, I don’t mean to imply any such thing. I simply want to share my
\ninsights on a topic I’ve been deeply involved with, both professionally and
\npersonally. Plus, SpicyIP just announced the 4th edition of the <\/span>Prof. Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition,
\n2024<\/span><\/a><\/span>. Having
\nparticipated in and secured the <\/span>first position in the first edition<\/span><\/a><\/span>, I thought it would be good to share my
\nexperience and make these ideas available for anyone to read, share, add, use,
\ncritique, or reject (well \u2026 if you do come to reject, please do it
\nconstructively!). All is fine as long as it makes you think and improve. The
\nprimary intention is to share (not to teach!) my writing process, ideations,
\nand style, and simultaneously learn it better by introspection. Because writing
\nas a process also helps one think clearly about the written topic. (How an
\nessay competition can change your life is a story for another day. Let\u2019s save
\nthat for a chai chat! Cool?). So, let\u2019s start. I first briefly share my
\nmotivation\/story behind partaking in essay writing competitions and then
\nexplain how I do it<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nfoolproof method to write, and especially win a competition. It’s a process
\nworth living in. Remember, besides your finally submitted work, winning has a
\nlot to do with the judges’ temperaments, understanding, and interests, not to
\nmention the socio-political environment of the time amongst other factors. All
\nI can provide is some ideas to help your essay stand out. It has worked for me,
\nand I hope it does for you! Please know that while I speak generally in this
\nessay, the background of all this conversation is law or legal writing
\ncompetition. I have cited my or my friends\u2019 works wherever apt not because we
\nare the best or the only ones to use this style. But because I am contextually
\nbetter equipped with them. You can have your examples.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nwith apt contextualization, these ideas\/techniques can be applied to other
\nwritings, including statements of purpose, motivation letters, and cover
\nletters.)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nFirst
\nthings first, Why Participate?<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n
\ncan be honest, my interest in them began as a response to my inferiority
\ncomplex about being unable to “speak” English fluently, which stemmed
\nfrom my Hindi-medium background. Writing, as I thought then, seemed easier to
\nme. It gave me, as the author, the freedom to be absent when the text was read.
\nMy writing could speak on my behalf. It allowed me to not stutter in front of a
\nperson or frame English sentences instantly. I could make mistakes in silence
\nand improve them before someone gets to read them. In sum, my draft, where I
\nhad more to express, can do the job. I can rest.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ndespite finding writing easier than speaking, I didn’t know how to write well,
\nespecially, how to construct long and complex sentences with interesting words
\nand phrases \u2013 something that can be called sexy\/nice\/interesting\/catchy. So it
\nbecame a personal challenge to improve my writing and comprehension skills. Not
\ngetting into more of the nitty-gritty of my life story (leaving it for a
\npotential Chai chat\u2026?), over time I realized that these competitions benefit(ed)
\nme in several ways: 1) improve my concentration, 2) keep me in the habit of
\nthinking and writing, 3) add accolades to my CV, (which would later help in
\nmany ways) and 4) increase my confidence in my language abilities 5.) help me
\npublish my essays, 6.) build new connections, gaining new friends or mentors, (<\/span>Swaraj Barooah<\/span><\/a><\/span> <\/span>and
\n<\/span>Artha Dermawan<\/span><\/a><\/span> come to my mind!), etc., etc.
\nImportant here is \u201cetc., etc.\u201d for I am still in the process of realizing its
\nbenefits, both tangible and intangible.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ncompetitions throughout law school, particularly after my third year when I
\nfirst won an essay competition with my very dear friend <\/span>Naman Dubey<\/span><\/a><\/span> on mob lynching. It became my favorite
\nactivity from then on. Every day, I would check platforms like Lawctopus to
\nfind upcoming essay competitions and send something accordingly. Over the
\nyears, I participated in over a dozen competitions and fortunately secured
\nranked positions in most of them. But everything starts with the topic
\nselection … What should I write about? Let me share some thoughts on this in
\nthe following section.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nTopic
\nSelection: Select what stands out or what you can make stand out<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nanswer to the question of \u201cHow to select a topic\u201d. You can select whatever you
\nwant to unless there is a pre-given list of topics. Otherwise, choose what
\ncan’t be easily ignored. Two questions that come handy to me \u2013 1.) What I
\nalready know and can effectively comment on\/opine; 2.) Will it also pique the
\njudges\u2019\/organizers’ interest, or at least make them think of something that
\nthey have not thought of already? History generally piques people\u2019s interest
\n(at least mine, for sure) especially if it promises to tell the untold. So,
\nhistorical analysis of a topic often helps, and if you add psychological or
\nother \u201cfancy\u201d under-discussed (or not easily known\/heard) angles it can give
\nsome brownie points. Mind you, I don’t say \u201cfancy\u201d to suggest you use flashy
\nunheard ideas (let\u2019s say, <\/span>Sorites paradox<\/span><\/a><\/span>) without grounding them in your essay\u2019s
\nissue. Put otherwise, the idea is to get an unconventional lens to present your
\ntopic and make the reader think\/see the issue differently.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ncasually call \u201cplaying with\u201d) the minute details of the issue\/topic. For topics
\nlike “the importance of protecting authors in the knowledge economy,”
\nI\u2019d start by critiquing the underlying assumptions, such as the existence of a
\nliberal\/capitalist state that aims to protect entities called authors. Then, I
\nmay problematize the definitions of “authors,” “knowledge,”
\nand “knowledge economy,” questioning who is posing\/defining these
\nquestions and themes for me to engage with. Does the term “knowledge
\neconomy” have a universal meaning? If it does, I’d instantly ask “Should it<\/i> have a universal meaning”
\n(again, some “history\/historical bite” will hold my hand!). These
\nquestions might not make it into the final draft, but they guide my research
\nand anchor my ideas in an unconventional yet solid base. In simple terms, this
\napproach helps me make my draft stand out.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\npersonally, professionally, or both. If I can be true, writing on new topics
\n(that I don\u2019t deeply know or care about) never worked for me. (But you can of
\ncourse do it if you think you can pull it off.) In other words, I write on
\ntopics that have bothered me for some time and that I \u201cfeel\u201d the topic has left
\nthe attention of many at least in my circles. I try to make these issues stand
\nout. Before exemplifying this, let me share some general traits of my topics \u2013
\nthey generally involve issues we face daily but don\u2019t see as an issue, or can\u2019t
\nhelp with (e.g. citation practices). They have a public interest angle (almost
\neverything can have. Lack of access to knowledge is my pet peeve!), include
\nun\/under-explored theory and history (e.g., director\u2019s rights), involve some
\nlevel of internal hidden tension (e.g., trademark law\u2019s comparison of the whole
\ntest).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n\u201cdeconstruct\u201d) the essay notification and guidelines (like this <\/span>one<\/span><\/a><\/span>) to understand the themes or topics they
\nwant me to write on. If specific themes are provided, I analyze them minutely
\nto grasp the mindset behind each one. I select what I have already worked on or
\nhave an issue with. If no theme is given, I check (because I just like to!) the
\norganizers’ (or the judges\u2019) history, background, recent engagements,
\nmotivations, controversies, and areas of interest. They help identify my topic
\nand nuance it accordingly.\u00a0 After selecting
\na topic and starting the draft, I begin by explaining why I chose the topic and
\nits significance (for me, my people, or them). This helps me understand and
\nappreciate the issue better while being cognizant of my ideation.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nclaim around the “Citation Game” –\u00a0
\na key aspect of my essay – to show how guidelines limit my ability to
\ncite, but my topic allows me to go beyond that (check the last page\/conclusion
\nof my <\/span>essay<\/span><\/a><\/span>). This is reflexive writing where you
\nconstantly introspect your ideas and speak through your draft. Similarly, if
\none is writing on issues like privacy or data protection, one could use the
\nanonymity guidelines of such competitions (i.e., the author cannot send their
\nentries with their names and identification) to bolster claims related to
\nprivacy, autonomy, bias, etc. For the latter example, I am just speaking aloud.
\nIf you wish to use it, please carefully think through them.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nwith a friend, who knows the subject\/topic and can emphatically critique them.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nHow
\nI write: Just do it!<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nJane\u00a0 Smiley said somewhere, <\/span>the task of the first draft is to exist<\/span><\/a><\/span>! (Sounds super cool, no? Mdrrr!) Once I decide on a topic
\nand gather some thoughts, I begin with writing my intuitions\/hunches about the
\ntopic (something like \u201chypothesis\u201d as they call it). First, I put together my
\nthoughts on the selected topic and write it down like a blog post of 1000-1500
\nwords (or maybe less). I see and try to understand its structure (you can take
\na printout and mark the relevant portions that can become headings or parts of
\nyour claims). After that, I leave it for some time but this topic\/task never
\nleaves my mind \u2013 whatever I see\/read\/observe runs through this topic. (Please
\nknow that this may not be healthy for everyone as it occupies a significant
\npart of my mental space.) I generally carry a diary with me to write my
\nthoughts because they visit me anytime unlike my partner \ud83d\ude09 (Jajaja \u2026) But I am
\nokay with it for now.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ndon\u2019t focus on language here unless there\u2019s some phrase or word I don\u2019t want to
\nmiss. If a phrase or word takes my attention, I keep it somewhere in this
\ndraft, often at the end, and use it when needed. (Well, I am a logophile, a
\nlover of words, so, almost every unheard new word interests me. Imagine my
\nfirst draft \u2026) This first draft usually has several logical gaps that need to
\nbe filled and substantiated.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ncrucial step, I particularly learned from Swaraj Barooah and my work with
\nSpicyIP, is to foreground my assumptions and notions about my topic and convey
\nto readers where I stand. (For example, check Swaraj Barooah\u2019s disclaimers in
\nthis <\/span>post<\/span><\/a><\/span> to know what I mean.) Upon retrospection, I think it
\ngives a <\/span>Sprezzatura<\/span><\/a><\/span> effect to my drafts. Well \u2026 I just \u201cfeel\u201d so, because
\nthere is no such effect as the \u201cSprezzatura effect.\u201d I just found it fitting
\nhere. Per Wikipedia, \u201cSprezzatura<\/span><\/i>
\n([sprettsa\u02c8tu\u02d0ra]) is an Italian <\/span>word that refers to a kind of
\neffortless grace, the art of making something difficult look easy, or
\nmaintaining a nonchalant demeanor while performing complex tasks.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nLet’s come back to the topic. Once the first draft is complete, I identify the
\nterms and concepts that need to be defined in the essay. My claims hinge on
\nthese definitions; unless my readers understand them as I do, my arguments
\nwon’t make the same impact. The key idea here is to be clear\/honest with your
\nreader and not sound super accurate because I know that with a little research,
\nI cannot be super accurate. In sum, don\u2019t let <\/span>perfection be the enemy of good<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nparts, gradually adding substance to each. I should admit that my approach to
\nacademic writing is influenced by American academic writing, which places a
\nstrong emphasis on identifying gaps and contemporizing the project. Of course,
\nI am not an expert in American legal scholarship and haven’t read extensively
\non the subject. My observation is based on what little I learned about American
\nlegal scholarship, especially during my LLM at American University Washington
\nCollege of Law (AUWCL) and working as the Arcadia Fellow for <\/span>PIJIP<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nfrom my LLM supervisor, <\/span>Prof. Sean Flynn<\/span><\/a><\/span>, an amazing mentor and professor. (No
\njoke, but at AUWCL, my <\/span>PIJIP<\/span><\/a><\/span> friends, especially <\/span>Shirin Syed<\/span><\/a><\/span>, another dear friend, and I used to call
\nthis the \u201cSean Way\u201d of writing because Sean never hesitated to remind us to
\n\u201ckeep it tight and short – just five lines paragraphs! \u2026\u201d and focus on why our
\ndrafts need to read and taken seriously. At SpicyIP as well, we are also
\nconstantly reminded to clarify what we intend to do with a post in the first
\none or two paragraphs of the post and not burden our readers with extra
\nunwanted information. I liked the “Flynn-ed” drafts for their clarity
\nand readability. For reference, you can observe this approach in the
\nscholarship of Sean Flynn, <\/span>here<\/span><\/a><\/span>.)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n\u201cFlynn-ed\u201d draft and its five components: hook, gap, methodology, claims, and
\nimplications.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n the reader’s attention. It can be the first line of your abstract or
\n introduction. E.g., in his fascinating post titled \u201c<\/span>How India Learnt to Stop Complaining
\n and Love Copyright<\/span><\/a><\/span>,\u201d Shivam hooks readers by saying \u201cIn the story of
\n Indian copyright law, the city of Stockholm has a prominent place. We
\n copyright buffs (yes, unfortunately, we exist); we just love Stockholm.\u201d
\n \u200b\u200bThis sets the stage for it makes\/encourages a reader to link Stockholm
\n with copyright which doesn\u2019t naturally arise.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
\n existing literature or field. It highlights the need for your research or
\n argument, showing why your work is relevant and necessary. Sounds heavy?
\n Well. It isn’t that difficult. Because you aren\u2019t asked to read all that
\n is there and then pinpoint what\u2019s missing. You are just expected to (or at
\n least this is how I do it) do what is generally missing in the popular
\n discussions. Of course, this also depends upon how long the essay is to be
\n written. Generally, you can note what\u2019s missing and how you are going to
\n fill it.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\nby <\/span>Aparajita<\/span><\/a><\/span>, I just identified a gap by saying
\n\u201cWhile she has raised several interesting points, there are a few more issues,
\nespecially c<\/span>oncerning passing off, that I
\nbelieve need highlighting.\u201d Similarly, in this <\/span>post<\/span><\/a><\/span>, discussing the \u201cright to research\u201d in India, I just said
\nthat the gap is \u201c[a] full-fledged discussion around whether a \u2018Right to
\nResearch\u2019 exists in India, whether it be internal, or external to Copyright
\nlaws seems largely absent.\u201d Just show what\u2019s not done or under-done, and say
\nthat you\u2019d do that. Voila \u2026 your gap identification is done.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n understand this thing. I myself am learning this at SciencesPo from an
\n amazing Professor <\/span>Helena Alviar Garc\u00eda<\/span><\/a><\/span>. For the essay, however, I just
\n outline the approach or methods used to do your research or make
\n arguments. Not making it very jargonized like \u2013 I am doing qualitative
\n research etc. (Unless your essay particularly demands that). For example,
\n I often use a historical basis for my arguments, so I would explain that I
\n use (e.g.) historical analysis and the Vienna Convention, specifying how
\n they are valid in my context. (See my IPKat post <\/span>here<\/span><\/a><\/span> for an idea) This is just one
\n example; you can tailor your methodology to fit your approach. For
\n reference, check Page 79 of this long <\/span>article<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
\n These are the main arguments or findings of your essay, representing the
\n central points you aim to prove or demonstrate through your work. For
\n example, when I assert that a case overlooks important precedents or
\n applies them incorrectly, I am making a claim. I will then provide
\n additional information, such as what specifically was missed and how, in a
\n concise manner. Alternatively, if I argue that few people critically
\n examine a particular legal metaphor, my essay will aim to fill this gap.
\n My claims will form the core of my argument about why the legal metaphor
\n is problematic.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
\n findings or arguments. They explain how your work contributes to the
\n field, what changes it suggests, or how it can be applied in practice.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\nmy abstract, i.e., if my abstract has five lines total, one will be dedicated
\nto each. But I won\u2019t suggest any \u201cx no of lines\/paragraph\u201d formula. Just make
\nyour abstract convey what your essay is trying to say and achieve, and most
\nimportantly, show what has been often missed (gap) and how you fill that. In
\nthe first chapter of my essay, the introduction, I would dedicate at least one
\nparagraph to each of these elements. Please know though, that there is no rigid
\nformula for determining where the \u201cHook\u201d ends and the \u201cImplications\u201d begin. The
\nkey is to ensure that your introduction includes each of these elements,
\ndemonstrating your motivation for choosing the topic, how you justify this
\nchoice, and how you plan to fill the existing gaps.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nflow of your essay\u2019s key arguments. Part II, generally, will provide better
\ncontextualization or historical background to build up the problem. Part III
\nwill present my novel argument. Part IV would combine the insights from Parts I
\nand II to show the current state of affairs or potential future wrongs flowing
\nfrom the issue. Part V would offer conclusions or suggestions based on the
\nfindings. This structure is flexible and should be adapted to fit the specific
\ndemands of your essay.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nLynching, my introduction would have five headings and I\u2019d use history (or
\nmaybe psychology) to make arguments. In Part II, I will present incidents of
\nmob lynching since 1947, identifying key patterns and themes.\u00a0 Part III will describe and apply a
\ntheoretical or legal model that problematizes or defines mob lynching. Part IV
\nwill analyze the current state of mob lynching (seen from the theory\/model used
\nin Part III) and show future trends if the situation continues as it is.
\nFinally, Part V will conclude my arguments and offer any suggestions or
\nrecommendations I might have. I may discuss the potential claims against my
\nessay and try to respond to them. This whole hypothetical example is a very tentative
\nthought, of course, it needs to be further thought through.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nForm
\nof Writing<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nthat only you know. (As a logophile, I have made this mistake in the initial
\nyears of my writing.) If you really want to use heavy\/unknow\/uncommon words,
\nplease keep the context in mind and use it accordingly.) Second, remember that
\nfancy\/cool words (let’s say <\/span>hamartia<\/span><\/a><\/span>) words may draw attention to the \u201cform\u201d of the essay but can very
\nlikely distract the reader from its \u201csubstance\u201d. Be wary of that. Try to make
\nyour augment accessible to people. You can use different tactics for that
\ndepending on your mood and mind. As I am often asked and questioned whether you
\nuse the first person in your essay (like I have) or the third person. I like to
\nvisibilize my presence in my works and resist any formal way of writing (or
\nWestern-styled academic writing, please see the <\/span>Geopolitics of Academic Writing<\/span><\/a><\/span>), so I prefer writing in the first
\nperson. However, it bears noting that writing happens in a context. That is,
\nhow you write is also shaped by where you want to write, for a government
\nreport or writing a note of your internship selection, I may change my way. In
\nsum, your strategy is yours. Plus, it is worth noting that writing in the first
\nperson does not mean you get too informal (well … you can do it at your
\nrisk.), and start using very loose\/open language that means or may mean more
\nthan what you mean to say. (I “am learning” it the hard way, Dost! \u2026
\nhuh.).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nconcerned provision\/party somewhat does its fair\/fairly.\u201d How people (at least
\nI) read it is: the moment you say, you \u201cfeel,\u201d I don’t think “you
\nthink” but for an essay or a logical argument, I want you to think. So, to
\nme, your sentence has lost some nuance. Then by saying \u201c… somewhat …\u201d I
\nonly think (and \u201cfeel\u201d) you have just relaxed your mental muscles and shifted
\nall your burden to a vague phrase like “somewhat.” (Of course, if you
\nwant to do exactly this, i.e., move your burden, hide your intention, and be
\nfishy, you can do it. That\u2019s a trick sometimes, but it is unlikely to work in
\nan essay). Finally, by dropping \u201cfair\/fairly\u201d you just added a blended flavor,
\npresenting another proof of lazy thinking. Of course, all that I said can be
\nwrong when your sentence was placed in a context that demanded all this. I am
\nsaying one should avoid indulging in this writing. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n