INNER CONFLICT
Rohan:(logic) Raj, I always thought of you as a modern thinker, but I can smell the stench of orthodoxy in your thoughts. Are you sure you haven’t been secretly sipping tea with the conservatives?
think practical, Love is not a fairy tale; it’s a decision based on compatibility, understanding, and mutual growth. Exploring options is essential—"Commitment without clarity is not devotion; it’s delusion." What do you want, Raj—a society where it’s dangerous to talk to a stranger but perfectly acceptable to marry one?
Raj:(emotion) Orthodoxy? Oh, please. Just because I don’t buy every shiny, hollow idea wrapped in paper of “modernity,”. It doesn’t mean I’m orthodox. There’s a difference between being progressive and being blind. And “delusion is the only solution.” Practical ?Sure But where’s the soul in that? Love isn’t a checklist or a strategic move. It’s about connection, trust, and giving yourself fully to someone. Can you honestly do that while juggling multiple people? Explore, by all means. I’m not against exploration; I’m against exploitation disguised as exploration. I’m not against dating; I’m against simultaneous dating. One should date one person at a time, with sincerity and respect. When you’re dating multiple people at once, you’re not exploring—you’re sampling. And let’s be honest, Rohan, no one likes to feel like a dish at a buffet.
Rohan: Why not? exploring options isn’t about dishonesty; it’s about gathering experiences to make a better choice. And what’s your alternative? Commit to the first person you meet and hope for the best? That’s like buying the first chair you sit on without checking others -SRK(Dear Zindgi). Relationships are investments, Raj. You wouldn’t put all your money into one stock without doing your research, would you? How can someone know what they truly want without exploring different connections?
Raj: Comparing people to stocks now? Brilliant. Should I also expect quarterly reports on emotional growth? Listen, I’m not saying commit blindly. I’m saying commit fully—one person at a time. What happens when you’re on the receiving end? How does it feel to be someone’s “option”(chair) instead of their priority (sofa)? "To love means to commit oneself without guarantee, to give oneself completely in the hope that our love will produce love in the loved person." In your language, Rohan The higher the risk higher returns.
Rohan: It’s not about priority; it’s about fairness. Both sides have the freedom to explore. If everyone communicates clearly, there’s no dishonesty even if it feels a bit unromantic. What’s worse—being an option temporarily or committing to someone who isn’t right for you long-term?
Raj: Clear communication? Please. modern love often glorifies ambiguity. People hesitate to define their relationships because they fear limiting their options. "We live in a world where it’s romantic to chase, but desperate to express; where defining a relationship is feared more than breaking one." And don’t pretend you’d be okay being an option. It stings. It’s insulting and derogatory.
Rohan: True, but isn’t the fear of commitment rooted in a larger issue? Maybe people don’t commit because they’re afraid of making the wrong choice.
So your solution is what? Commit fully, even if you’re unsure? Isn’t it better to explore and then decide? "Never let the heart make a decision the mind will regret." Love is risky, sure, but wouldn’t you rather take calculated risks than leap blindly? "Love is not the absence of risk, but the management of it. Blind leaps often lead to broken bones."
Raj: Calculated risks? And that’s where we differ, my friend. You’re so busy calculating, you forget to feel. Love isn’t a spreadsheet; it’s an experience. And sometimes, the messiest, most irrational choices lead to the deepest connections. Be realistic: Plan for a miracle. There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.-Friedrich Nietzsche. The problem with your “calculated” approach is that it strips away the vulnerability—the raw, unfiltered connection that makes love real.
Rohan: Vulnerability is fine, but blind devotion is foolish. Why pour your energy into one person without knowing if they feel the same? You’d just be filling a bottomless pit of unmet expectations.
Raj: At least I’d be authentic. Your logic-driven love sounds safe but shallow. Logic is ugly, it is the weapon of clever and cunning to deceive others and himself, there is no logic behind love, dance, art, fun, and music, yet they are beautiful. Real love requires risk—emotional, irrational, gut-wrenching risk. Without it, what’s the point? "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."— Mahatma Gandhi, so be courageous take risks “trust”
Rohan: The point is sustainability. Love isn’t just about feelings; it’s about building a life together. And you can’t build anything stable on blind leaps. You need structure, compatibility, and time to figure out what works.
Raj: And in the process, you lose the magic. You reduce love to a negotiation. What happened to the thrill of surrender? The beauty of uncertainty? Not everything in life needs a blueprint and structure, let it flow spontaneously, effortlessly, enjoy the process and forget about the outcome. Choose to be an innocent fool rather than a cunning culprit. "यदि किसी ने तुम्हें ठगा, तो तुमने कुछ नहीं खोया। लेकिन यदि तुमने किसी को ठगा, तो तुमने सब कुछ खो दिया—अपनी आत्मा। और इस संसार में आत्मा खोकर पाने जैसा कुछ भी तो नहीं।"
Rohan: Uncertainty is fine—in moderation. But love isn’t a game of roulette. You can’t just spin the wheel and hope for the best. If that’s your approach, don’t be surprised when it crashes and burns.
Raj: And if you overanalyze everything, don’t be surprised when you miss the very thing you were looking for. Love isn’t meant to be solved; it’s meant to be lived.
Rohan: Maybe. But if living it means losing yourself in the process, is it worth it?
Raj: Losing yourself isn’t always bad. Sometimes, it’s the only way to truly find someone else.
"if you want to check whether a person is trustworthy or not, then trust them,"
Rohan: And sometimes, it’s how you lose everything.
Rohan: If you think logically, it’s entirely natural for someone to have feelings for more than one person. What’s wrong with that? It’s biological, evolutionary, and observable in many animal species. Monogamy is a construct of human society— a convenient construct to regulate property, inheritance, and control, it’s neither universal nor inherently natural. While a few species may exhibit monogamy, they are exceptions, and as the saying goes, “exceptions prove the rule.” Even within your cultural history, figures like Janak, Tara( Vali’s wife) Krishna, Arjun, Draupadi, Abraham, King Solomon, Sarah, and Prophet Muhammad had multiple partners. This practice was only criminalized with the Hindu Marriage Act post-independence. And why should one feel guilty for being torn between choices? Isn’t confusion the hallmark of freedom?
Raj: If you’re going to compare humans to animals, then why not live like them? Walk naked, abandon your home, and survive in the jungle. There, you’ll find no police, no courts, no justice, no science, no art, no equality, no culture in the wild. Humans are civilized, and that makes us superior to other animals. Our developed brains have taken us to the moon and beyond, exploring the mysteries of outer space. Instead of justifying primal instincts, we should strive to elevate human consciousness and teach the values of culture and civility. Civilization is not a cage—it’s the crowning achievement of our species.
Rohan: And therein lies the irony. You speak of elevation, yet suppress what is most natural. In the name of culture, however, you’ve suppressed the natural desires of humanity. A place where it is normal to piss in public but not to kiss in public. This repression has led to obsessions, neuroses, and even schizophrenia. This suppression hasn’t created saints, pops, and imams; it has bred obsession, repression, and mental anguish."ये इंसान के दुश्मन समाजों की दुनिया।"
Culture itself has become the culprit, distorting and fragmenting humanity. As Freud aptly said, “The more perfect a person is on the outside, the more demons they have on the inside.” Humans are not superior to nature; we are a part of it, just as animals are. Our ego might convince us otherwise, but as Shakespeare wrote, “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” True harmony doesn’t come from denial but from integration. “Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.”-Albert Einstein.
The jungle, with its chaos, is honest. Your civilization, with its polished facade, hides the most dangerous predator of all—man. Animals don’t build weapons, wage world wars, Pollute the environment, Global warming, or fracture the world along lines of caste, religion, race, or nationality. It is humanity’s inflated sense of superiority that has led to these divisions and destruction.
The moon, split between shadow and light,
Doesn’t choose—yet shines so bright.
In love’s paradox, the truth may hide,
Neither logic nor heart, but both, collide.
Is love the triumph of reason or the surrender to chaos? And in choosing, do we lose a part of ourselves? And when you’re caught between logic and emotion, where do you find your balance?