I attended a guest lecture the previous day after class hours. The topic for the lecture was "Litigation Management". Although the lecturer seemed off topic to me most of the times, I was undoubtedly impressed with some of the points that he made.
He started off with a question, "When did the concept of litigation come into existence?". Students started brushing up their legal history memories, making vague references to various instances. Some pointed out the era when monarchs used to settle disputes, some went a bit deeper into the ancient ages of Egyptian Pharaohs and Harappan Civilizations, but he was not satisfied with any of those answers. He was insisting on going deeper into the history. A few brilliant ones took the direct shot saying, it started with the inception, when humans came into existence and disputes arose between them. Well, that seemed too big and wispy for him to digest. Finally, he thought to give the answer himself. He walked up to the podium and flipped onto the slide which referred to ancient litigation in the age of Mahabharata and Ramayana. I had severe doubt about his assertion, but couldn't muster the courage to stand up against a guest who was enjoying spreading out his knowledge.
The crux of litigation may be dispute settlement, but litigation has certain specifications in its character that were certainly not there in those ancient times. They can be termed as dispute settlements, but I doubt if they can be termed litigation per se.
Anyway, even though he seemed a bit out of the way while explaining things he gave me a reason to mull upon. His claim of litigation in ancient times may be doubtful, but it can't be denied that disputes would be existing since the day one human would've interacted with another. They would've expressed themselves, possibly not have been able to talk, but must have made each other understand their opinion about something. They might have gestured, squinted or done something else, no one can be sure. But when I try to put myself into that condition, and imagine how the situations would've been at that time, it feels as if I've reached the core from where the whole concept of litigation would've egressed.
Interaction. Humans are social animal. These are certain concepts that inhume the possibility of any person to live in isolation. They seem to be claiming the importance of interaction, highlighting its positive side and its inevitability. I won't go to the extent of denying this, because it will seem to have gone beyond the normal conceptions and credibility, but would certainly like to say that everything is not so goody when it comes to interactions and socializing. While interactions have brought peace, they've also been the reason for disputes. In fact, the arguments that claim interaction as an agent of peace should realize what actually caused the need of that interaction. Where did it start from? No doubt, the answer is gonna be some direct or indirect, clear or ambiguous, behavior or action, which were nothing but manifestations of interaction itself.
So, we did something at the start and it has stretched a long way, ramifying in multiple directions, getting extremely cobwebby, and what we do now is trying to control, regulate and manage this cobweb which is so confusing and unending that our whole life is spent in the same.
He started off with a question, "When did the concept of litigation come into existence?". Students started brushing up their legal history memories, making vague references to various instances. Some pointed out the era when monarchs used to settle disputes, some went a bit deeper into the ancient ages of Egyptian Pharaohs and Harappan Civilizations, but he was not satisfied with any of those answers. He was insisting on going deeper into the history. A few brilliant ones took the direct shot saying, it started with the inception, when humans came into existence and disputes arose between them. Well, that seemed too big and wispy for him to digest. Finally, he thought to give the answer himself. He walked up to the podium and flipped onto the slide which referred to ancient litigation in the age of Mahabharata and Ramayana. I had severe doubt about his assertion, but couldn't muster the courage to stand up against a guest who was enjoying spreading out his knowledge.
The crux of litigation may be dispute settlement, but litigation has certain specifications in its character that were certainly not there in those ancient times. They can be termed as dispute settlements, but I doubt if they can be termed litigation per se.
Anyway, even though he seemed a bit out of the way while explaining things he gave me a reason to mull upon. His claim of litigation in ancient times may be doubtful, but it can't be denied that disputes would be existing since the day one human would've interacted with another. They would've expressed themselves, possibly not have been able to talk, but must have made each other understand their opinion about something. They might have gestured, squinted or done something else, no one can be sure. But when I try to put myself into that condition, and imagine how the situations would've been at that time, it feels as if I've reached the core from where the whole concept of litigation would've egressed.
Interaction. Humans are social animal. These are certain concepts that inhume the possibility of any person to live in isolation. They seem to be claiming the importance of interaction, highlighting its positive side and its inevitability. I won't go to the extent of denying this, because it will seem to have gone beyond the normal conceptions and credibility, but would certainly like to say that everything is not so goody when it comes to interactions and socializing. While interactions have brought peace, they've also been the reason for disputes. In fact, the arguments that claim interaction as an agent of peace should realize what actually caused the need of that interaction. Where did it start from? No doubt, the answer is gonna be some direct or indirect, clear or ambiguous, behavior or action, which were nothing but manifestations of interaction itself.
So, we did something at the start and it has stretched a long way, ramifying in multiple directions, getting extremely cobwebby, and what we do now is trying to control, regulate and manage this cobweb which is so confusing and unending that our whole life is spent in the same.
