A Collection of My Short Works Worth Sharing

Category: Short Reads

Why do we need law?

Here goes my first ever lawschool assignment. Was set at unpublished for a while, but now I figured, fuck it. This is my blog.

What even is law? What is it supposed to do? Can we really say we need it, based on those grounds?

Law can be called a depiction of ideals of a particular society, or a tool to ensure the uniformity of those ideals, at least in action. Ideals can not be uniform by design, so that requires the presence of an external tool to enforce that and maintain order. If anyone goes against the law, or the collective ideals, he/she may be punished, fined or reprimanded in some other way. That way, generations upon generations can learn to follow almost the same set of rules and regulations, after its original makers are long gone – something that wouldn’t be possible to achieve otherwise.

Even when it has to bring about change, it can do that quasi-statically, thus providing for better stability and protecting the people from themselves. Societies that have been tested as reliable for long enough are less likely to fall than those which aren’t – therefore, revolutions work in small parts, and the favourable parts of old laws would be kept in on their individual merit to the new social conscience, rather than them being discarded as a whole.

Everyone may, by the virtue of equality in law, also be subjected to the same rules. That ensures that everyone may have some rights guaranteed by those who govern them, and in case of democracy, are in turn governed by them. That brings up another question – what does it really mean for someone to govern someone else? Does it refer to being able to make your opinion count for someone? Having the power to punish him if he disobeys? Can anyone ever really have the right to punish someone else? What would a right even be? If a lion kills another, does it have the right to eat it? If a human kills another, does he have the right as well?

Rights, are like the products of gambles having been gone on since time immemorial. Law has to see to it that they never fall below an acceptable threshold, which is defined and interpreted by whoever is in power, in the limits of that power. That is necessary to promote a basic dignity among the people, and bring about a greater happiness than would be without it. At least according to how the particular law interprets it.

Does that mean we need law? The reasoning that it protects values is circular – the law itself stands defenseless if the values are removed. It is the combination of law and values that protects itself. In other words, the circle of law and values has to be made complete, and thus we need a law for proper functioning of society.


“Sir, the British have destroyed our Naval forces. We have lost the battle. More importantly, we have lost Egypt.”, a commander told him. Of course, he knew this was going to happen. He did try to evade it at his best, but British had a strong Navy. He tried to tell this to the Directory, but they weren’t one to listen.

“We must do something else they will wipe us off existence. Check the maps, where shall we go for safety? They won’t let us go back the way we came.”, he asked. The alternatives would demand a war, but he had to do what was needed of him. He had to make it back, and the troops were already decimated.

“We can go to Acre, in Syria.”, the commander replied.

“Perfect! They’d surrender within 2 weeks, we can overthrow the Ottomans there and the British wouldn’t capture us there so easily. Their rule over India would be easily threatened, which they wouldn’t want to lose. To Acre we go!”, he commanded.

“But sir, we can’t really invade the Holy Land with our meagre strength of numbers, can we?”, the commander asked.

“We must. After that, we shall go on and capture Jerusalem, and soon return to our homes. The alternative is to die out here itself.”, he said.

And so they went to Acre where the ruler refused to surrender and held ground for much over a month, also much infuriated by what he had done to their fellow countrymen in Jaffa before coming there. They fought fiercely and defeated him, where he lost quarter of his army in the bloodshed, and another quarter was wounded. The enemies had too much armies to be defeated, and his siege was laid to dust. Now all he could do was to wait there for his death.

Even after winning over so many battles, he had utterly lost. They could kill him whenever they’d prefer. And there, his motherland was inviting him. But he couldn’t leave his faithful army here, could he? He cold of course make out an alternative plan, even with his strength of 6500-7000 soldiers, of which 33% were wounded and only about 4500 could fight.

But his motherland was in chaos, and he had to make a choice.

And so, in Summer 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte abandoned his army in Egypt and returned to France, organising a coup d’etat and becoming the first Consul and later, the Emperor.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Subscribe To Blog Via Email!