I Don’t Know; Just sharing my thoughts

Writing an analytical legal essay is a formidable task. Even a thought about it evokes a
flurry of questions- What should be the topic of the essay? What
competition/journal/blog should  I write
it for? Where to start? What should be the structure of the essay? Attempting
to answer the perennial stream of such questions, I bring to you a guest post
from a dear friend and a prolific writer, Lokesh Vyas. Sharing his last name
with the author of the great Indian epic- Mahabharat, Lokesh is a regular
contributor to IP blogs like SpicyIP and IPRMENTLAW. He has also won
multiple prestigious essay competition including the inaugural edition of the
Prof. Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition, and the ATRIP Essay Competition, 2023.
Lokesh is currently pursuing his doctorate at Sciences Po, Paris.  

How to Write Essays For Writing Competitions: I Don’t Know; Just sharing my thoughts

Quick reminder: no one (especially not me) can give you a
foolproof method to write, and especially win a competition. It’s a process
worth living in. Remember, besides your finally submitted work, winning has a
lot to do with the judges’ temperaments, understanding, and interests, not to
mention the socio-political environment of the time amongst other factors. All
I can provide is some ideas to help your essay stand out. It has worked for me,
and I hope it does for you! Please know that while I speak generally in this
essay, the background of all this conversation is law or legal writing
competition. I have cited my or my friends’ works wherever apt not because we
are the best or the only ones to use this style. But because I am contextually
better equipped with them. You can have your examples.

(Sidenote: while this draft is focused on the legal essay,
with apt contextualization, these ideas/techniques can be applied to other
writings, including statements of purpose, motivation letters, and cover
letters.)

First
things first, Why Participate?

To me, essay, and writing competitions are fun. But if I
can be honest, my interest in them began as a response to my inferiority
complex about being unable to “speak” English fluently, which stemmed
from my Hindi-medium background. Writing, as I thought then, seemed easier to
me. It gave me, as the author, the freedom to be absent when the text was read.
My writing could speak on my behalf. It allowed me to not stutter in front of a
person or frame English sentences instantly. I could make mistakes in silence
and improve them before someone gets to read them. In sum, my draft, where I
had more to express, can do the job. I can rest.

It wasn’t so easy, however. The challenge was that,
despite finding writing easier than speaking, I didn’t know how to write well,
especially, how to construct long and complex sentences with interesting words
and phrases – something that can be called sexy/nice/interesting/catchy. So it
became a personal challenge to improve my writing and comprehension skills. Not
getting into more of the nitty-gritty of my life story (leaving it for a
potential Chai chat…?), over time I realized that these competitions benefit(ed)
me in several ways: 1) improve my concentration, 2) keep me in the habit of
thinking and writing, 3) add accolades to my CV, (which would later help in
many ways) and 4) increase my confidence in my language abilities 5.) help me
publish my essays, 6.) build new connections, gaining new friends or mentors, (Swaraj Barooah and
Artha Dermawan come to my mind!), etc., etc.
Important here is “etc., etc.” for I am still in the process of realizing its
benefits, both tangible and intangible.

Anyway, the crux is that these motivations led me to consistently partake in essay/writing
competitions throughout law school, particularly after my third year when I
first won an essay competition with my very dear friend Naman Dubey on mob lynching. It became my favorite
activity from then on. Every day, I would check platforms like Lawctopus to
find upcoming essay competitions and send something accordingly. Over the
years, I participated in over a dozen competitions and fortunately secured
ranked positions in most of them. But everything starts with the topic
selection … What should I write about? Let me share some thoughts on this in
the following section.

Topic
Selection: Select what stands out or what you can make stand out

As cliche, as it may sound, there is no straight-jacket
answer to the question of “How to select a topic”. You can select whatever you
want to unless there is a pre-given list of topics. Otherwise, choose what
can’t be easily ignored. Two questions that come handy to me – 1.) What I
already know and can effectively comment on/opine; 2.) Will it also pique the
judges’/organizers’ interest, or at least make them think of something that
they have not thought of already? History generally piques people’s interest
(at least mine, for sure) especially if it promises to tell the untold. So,
historical analysis of a topic often helps, and if you add psychological or
other “fancy” under-discussed (or not easily known/heard) angles it can give
some brownie points. Mind you, I don’t say “fancy” to suggest you use flashy
unheard ideas (let’s say, Sorites paradox) without grounding them in your essay’s
issue. Put otherwise, the idea is to get an unconventional lens to present your
topic and make the reader think/see the issue differently. 

Remember, God is in the details. So focus on (which I
casually call “playing with”) the minute details of the issue/topic. For topics
like “the importance of protecting authors in the knowledge economy,”
I’d start by critiquing the underlying assumptions, such as the existence of a
liberal/capitalist state that aims to protect entities called authors. Then, I
may problematize the definitions of “authors,” “knowledge,”
and “knowledge economy,” questioning who is posing/defining these
questions and themes for me to engage with. Does the term “knowledge
economy” have a universal meaning? If it does, I’d instantly ask “Should it have a universal meaning”
(again, some “history/historical bite” will hold my hand!). These
questions might not make it into the final draft, but they guide my research
and anchor my ideas in an unconventional yet solid base. In simple terms, this
approach helps me make my draft stand out.

I generally write on issues I am deeply involved with,
personally, professionally, or both. If I can be true, writing on new topics
(that I don’t deeply know or care about) never worked for me. (But you can of
course do it if you think you can pull it off.) In other words, I write on
topics that have bothered me for some time and that I “feel” the topic has left
the attention of many at least in my circles. I try to make these issues stand
out. Before exemplifying this, let me share some general traits of my topics –
they generally involve issues we face daily but don’t see as an issue, or can’t
help with (e.g. citation practices). They have a public interest angle (almost
everything can have. Lack of access to knowledge is my pet peeve!), include
un/under-explored theory and history (e.g., director’s rights), involve some
level of internal hidden tension (e.g., trademark law’s comparison of the whole
test).

Keeping all these in mind, I then carefully examine (or
“deconstruct”) the essay notification and guidelines (like this one) to understand the themes or topics they
want me to write on. If specific themes are provided, I analyze them minutely
to grasp the mindset behind each one. I select what I have already worked on or
have an issue with. If no theme is given, I check (because I just like to!) the
organizers’ (or the judges’) history, background, recent engagements,
motivations, controversies, and areas of interest. They help identify my topic
and nuance it accordingly.  After selecting
a topic and starting the draft, I begin by explaining why I chose the topic and
its significance (for me, my people, or them). This helps me understand and
appreciate the issue better while being cognizant of my ideation. 

For example, in the recent ATRIP essay competition, I used their guideline document to bolster my
claim around the “Citation Game” – 
a key aspect of my essay – to show how guidelines limit my ability to
cite, but my topic allows me to go beyond that (check the last page/conclusion
of my essay). This is reflexive writing where you
constantly introspect your ideas and speak through your draft. Similarly, if
one is writing on issues like privacy or data protection, one could use the
anonymity guidelines of such competitions (i.e., the author cannot send their
entries with their names and identification) to bolster claims related to
privacy, autonomy, bias, etc. For the latter example, I am just speaking aloud.
If you wish to use it, please carefully think through them.

Once all this is done, I discuss my initial claims/ideas
with a friend, who knows the subject/topic and can emphatically critique them.

How
I write: Just do it!

As
Jane  Smiley said somewhere, the task of the first draft is to exist! (Sounds super cool, no? Mdrrr!) Once I decide on a topic
and gather some thoughts, I begin with writing my intuitions/hunches about the
topic (something like “hypothesis” as they call it). First, I put together my
thoughts on the selected topic and write it down like a blog post of 1000-1500
words (or maybe less). I see and try to understand its structure (you can take
a printout and mark the relevant portions that can become headings or parts of
your claims). After that, I leave it for some time but this topic/task never
leaves my mind – whatever I see/read/observe runs through this topic. (Please
know that this may not be healthy for everyone as it occupies a significant
part of my mental space.) I generally carry a diary with me to write my
thoughts because they visit me anytime unlike my partner 😉 (Jajaja …) But I am
okay with it for now.

I
don’t focus on language here unless there’s some phrase or word I don’t want to
miss. If a phrase or word takes my attention, I keep it somewhere in this
draft, often at the end, and use it when needed. (Well, I am a logophile, a
lover of words, so, almost every unheard new word interests me. Imagine my
first draft …) This first draft usually has several logical gaps that need to
be filled and substantiated.

Another
crucial step, I particularly learned from Swaraj Barooah and my work with
SpicyIP, is to foreground my assumptions and notions about my topic and convey
to readers where I stand. (For example, check Swaraj Barooah’s disclaimers in
this post to know what I mean.) Upon retrospection, I think it
gives a Sprezzatura effect to my drafts. Well … I just “feel” so, because
there is no such effect as the “Sprezzatura effect.” I just found it fitting
here. Per Wikipedia, “Sprezzatura
([sprettsaˈtuːra]) is an Italian word that refers to a kind of
effortless grace, the art of making something difficult look easy, or
maintaining a nonchalant demeanor while performing complex tasks.”

Anyway.
Let’s come back to the topic. Once the first draft is complete, I identify the
terms and concepts that need to be defined in the essay. My claims hinge on
these definitions; unless my readers understand them as I do, my arguments
won’t make the same impact. The key idea here is to be clear/honest with your
reader and not sound super accurate because I know that with a little research,
I cannot be super accurate. In sum, don’t let perfection be the enemy of good.

The next part is structuring the essay. I do this in five
parts, gradually adding substance to each. I should admit that my approach to
academic writing is influenced by American academic writing, which places a
strong emphasis on identifying gaps and contemporizing the project. Of course,
I am not an expert in American legal scholarship and haven’t read extensively
on the subject. My observation is based on what little I learned about American
legal scholarship, especially during my LLM at American University Washington
College of Law (AUWCL) and working as the Arcadia Fellow for PIJIP.

So, the five aspects I refer to are Hook, Gap, Methodology, Claims, and Implications. This, I learned
from my LLM supervisor, Prof. Sean Flynn, an amazing mentor and professor. (No
joke, but at AUWCL, my PIJIP friends, especially Shirin Syed, another dear friend, and I used to call
this the “Sean Way” of writing because Sean never hesitated to remind us to
“keep it tight and short – just five lines paragraphs! …” and focus on why our
drafts need to read and taken seriously. At SpicyIP as well, we are also
constantly reminded to clarify what we intend to do with a post in the first
one or two paragraphs of the post and not burden our readers with extra
unwanted information. I liked the “Flynn-ed” drafts for their clarity
and readability. For reference, you can observe this approach in the
scholarship of Sean Flynn, here.)

Let me briefly share and explain what I mean by a
“Flynn-ed” draft and its five components: hook, gap, methodology, claims, and
implications.

1. Hook: It is the opening statement or question that grabs
   the reader’s attention. It can be the first line of your abstract or
   introduction. E.g., in his fascinating post titled “How India Learnt to Stop Complaining
   and Love Copyright,” Shivam hooks readers by saying “In the story of
   Indian copyright law, the city of Stockholm has a prominent place. We
   copyright buffs (yes, unfortunately, we exist); we just love Stockholm.”
   ​​This sets the stage for it makes/encourages a reader to link Stockholm
   with copyright which doesn’t naturally arise.

2. Gap: A missing piece or an unresolved issue in the
   existing literature or field. It highlights the need for your research or
   argument, showing why your work is relevant and necessary. Sounds heavy?
   Well. It isn’t that difficult. Because you aren’t asked to read all that
   is there and then pinpoint what’s missing. You are just expected to (or at
   least this is how I do it) do what is generally missing in the popular
   discussions. Of course, this also depends upon how long the essay is to be
   written. Generally, you can note what’s missing and how you are going to
   fill it. 

E.g., in this post where I extended the discussion broached
by Aparajita, I just identified a gap by saying
“While she has raised several interesting points, there are a few more issues,
especially concerning passing off, that I
believe need highlighting.” Similarly, in this post, discussing the “right to research” in India, I just said
that the gap is “[a] full-fledged discussion around whether a ‘Right to
Research’ exists in India, whether it be internal, or external to Copyright
laws seems largely absent.” Just show what’s not done or under-done, and say
that you’d do that. Voila … your gap identification is done.

3. Methodology: One would need to take classes and lectures to
   understand this thing. I myself am learning this at SciencesPo from an
   amazing Professor Helena Alviar García. For the essay, however, I just
   outline the approach or methods used to do your research or make
   arguments. Not making it very jargonized like – I am doing qualitative
   research etc. (Unless your essay particularly demands that). For example,
   I often use a historical basis for my arguments, so I would explain that I
   use (e.g.) historical analysis and the Vienna Convention, specifying how
   they are valid in my context. (See my IPKat post here for an idea) This is just one
   example; you can tailor your methodology to fit your approach. For
   reference, check Page 79 of this long article.

4. Claims:
   These are the main arguments or findings of your essay, representing the
   central points you aim to prove or demonstrate through your work. For
   example, when I assert that a case overlooks important precedents or
   applies them incorrectly, I am making a claim. I will then provide
   additional information, such as what specifically was missed and how, in a
   concise manner. Alternatively, if I argue that few people critically
   examine a particular legal metaphor, my essay will aim to fill this gap.
   My claims will form the core of my argument about why the legal metaphor
   is problematic.

5. Implications: The implications discuss the broader significance of your
   findings or arguments. They explain how your work contributes to the
   field, what changes it suggests, or how it can be applied in practice.

Ideally, I’d prefer to have all these five components in
my abstract, i.e., if my abstract has five lines total, one will be dedicated
to each. But I won’t suggest any “x no of lines/paragraph” formula. Just make
your abstract convey what your essay is trying to say and achieve, and most
importantly, show what has been often missed (gap) and how you fill that. In
the first chapter of my essay, the introduction, I would dedicate at least one
paragraph to each of these elements. Please know though, that there is no rigid
formula for determining where the “Hook” ends and the “Implications” begin. The
key is to ensure that your introduction includes each of these elements,
demonstrating your motivation for choosing the topic, how you justify this
choice, and how you plan to fill the existing gaps.

In the following sections, these components should aid the
flow of your essay’s key arguments. Part II, generally, will provide better
contextualization or historical background to build up the problem. Part III
will present my novel argument. Part IV would combine the insights from Parts I
and II to show the current state of affairs or potential future wrongs flowing
from the issue. Part V would offer conclusions or suggestions based on the
findings. This structure is flexible and should be adapted to fit the specific
demands of your essay.

Let me exemplify this. If I were to write an essay on Mob
Lynching, my introduction would have five headings and I’d use history (or
maybe psychology) to make arguments. In Part II, I will present incidents of
mob lynching since 1947, identifying key patterns and themes.  Part III will describe and apply a
theoretical or legal model that problematizes or defines mob lynching. Part IV
will analyze the current state of mob lynching (seen from the theory/model used
in Part III) and show future trends if the situation continues as it is.
Finally, Part V will conclude my arguments and offer any suggestions or
recommendations I might have. I may discuss the potential claims against my
essay and try to respond to them. This whole hypothetical example is a very tentative
thought, of course, it needs to be further thought through.

Form
of Writing

First of all, avoid writing very long sentences with words
that only you know. (As a logophile, I have made this mistake in the initial
years of my writing.) If you really want to use heavy/unknow/uncommon words,
please keep the context in mind and use it accordingly.) Second, remember that
fancy/cool words (let’s say hamartia) words may draw attention to the “form” of the essay but can very
likely distract the reader from its “substance”. Be wary of that. Try to make
your augment accessible to people. You can use different tactics for that
depending on your mood and mind. As I am often asked and questioned whether you
use the first person in your essay (like I have) or the third person. I like to
visibilize my presence in my works and resist any formal way of writing (or
Western-styled academic writing, please see the Geopolitics of Academic Writing), so I prefer writing in the first
person. However, it bears noting that writing happens in a context. That is,
how you write is also shaped by where you want to write, for a government
report or writing a note of your internship selection, I may change my way. In
sum, your strategy is yours. Plus, it is worth noting that writing in the first
person does not mean you get too informal (well … you can do it at your
risk.), and start using very loose/open language that means or may mean more
than what you mean to say. (I “am learning” it the hard way, Dost! …
huh.).

E.g., I’d avoid using a sentence like this: “I feel the
concerned provision/party somewhat does its fair/fairly.” How people (at least
I) read it is: the moment you say, you “feel,” I don’t think “you
think” but for an essay or a logical argument, I want you to think. So, to
me, your sentence has lost some nuance. Then by saying “… somewhat …” I
only think (and “feel”) you have just relaxed your mental muscles and shifted
all your burden to a vague phrase like “somewhat.” (Of course, if you
want to do exactly this, i.e., move your burden, hide your intention, and be
fishy, you can do it. That’s a trick sometimes, but it is unlikely to work in
an essay). Finally, by dropping “fair/fairly” you just added a blended flavor,
presenting another proof of lazy thinking. Of course, all that I said can be
wrong when your sentence was placed in a context that demanded all this. I am
saying one should avoid indulging in this writing.

Final
Thoughts: Any Tips for the SpicyIP’s Essay Competition?

Not
really. The above pretty much covers what I have to
say about the competition, and I hope it helps you think better, learn about a
topic, and more importantly, make you more aware of your thinking style or
ideation patterns. Winning an essay competition is definitely the aim, but like
I said before, it’s all about enjoying the journey. If you can get people to
see the topic in a new and interesting way, the rest will take care of itself.
However, one specific piece of advice I can add is to read Prof. Basheer’s
posts, especially his thematic ones (such as “From Innovation to Outnovation?”) or those written on specific occasions
like World IP Day, Diwali, or Independence Day. They are amazing and offer
great insights. There you can find some writing techniques and nice
words/phrases that you don’t often hear. A few phrases I’ve borrowed from his
works and now use are: “Herein lies the rub” or Here’s the hitch,”
“dither,” and “whither, and wither” (or when the context allows
me “w(h)ither”), “IP firmament,” “hallowed halls of IP” and many others.
You can also check a website dedicated to him (check here https://shamnad.com/) and find some other interesting
ideas/thoughts.

That’s all from my end. I hope it helps you. Good luck.

Thanks, Swaraj Barooah and
Shivam Kaushik for their input on the draft. Here, I must express my inability
to individually acknowledge the multitude of individuals who have consciously
or unconsciously influenced and enriched my thought processes, particularly
those who have reviewed my drafts and collaborated with me over the years. May
the force be with you! Merci Beaucoup!

A bientot