By- GHAYUR ALAM

This essay attempts to identify and highlight some problems that scholars of law have been struggling with in answering the grand question: what is law? The question is neither a professional’s question nor a question of law but a question about law. The question has been described as ‘persistent question’ by H. L. A. Hart and as ‘ancient question’ by Ronald Dworkin. Both the learned scholars answer this question in their own ways but the question remains ‘persistent’ and ‘ancient’. Tomes after tomes, articles after articles have been written
to answer this question highlighting the relevance and significance of thereof. The idea shared in common by all such writings is the ‘content or substance of law’ (both
procedural and substantive), i.e., what is and what is not part of law. This essay, however, neither attempts to identify ‘is part’ or ‘is not part’ of law nor does it seek to highlight
the relevance or significance of the question. Problem is plenty – not scarcity – of answers which are abstract, ambiguous, complex, prolix, obese, opaque, and
vague. This essay, therefore, is expected to serve at least two related purposes. One, other scholars may add and modify the menu of problems. Two, ways and means can be worked out to solve these problems or at least to minimize them.

Keywords: Law, Question, Scholar’s Question, Professional’s Question, Plenty, abstract, complex, prolix, obese, opaque, ambiguous, and vague.