These are a series of exchanges between myself and Monsieur P. I was torn between keeping them for myself and putting it up here. I finally decided to put them up here. I hope you, my dear reader, enjoy these exchanges!
He writes:
Dear N,
Alright, let’s get this out of the way: when you said you were leaning toward right-wing ideology, I felt this sharp, bitter disappointment. Like watching a bird willingly fly into a cage. You’re too damn sharp for that. Writers like you, the real ones, the ones with fire in their guts and ink in their veins, don’t walk backward. They don’t cling to rigid structures and archaic rules. They push, they question, they break things.
Artists—writers, painters, musicians, all of them—we’re not just here to describe the world; we’re here to change it. Not to dress up the same old crap and call it art, but to scrape the mold off humanity and show people what’s underneath. You can’t do that looking backward.
But then you said, “Don’t worry, I’m young and highly impressionable.” And for the first time in that conversation, I felt something close to hope. You’re still figuring it out, and that’s good. That’s honest. We’re all just stumbling forward, hoping we don’t fall too hard.
Now, about this religion and spirituality thing. You said you’re both. I’m neither. Haven’t been for a long time. And it’s not because I think I’m smarter than all that—it’s just because I can’t buy into systems that sell lies to keep people docile. Let me tell you why I lean left, and maybe you’ll see what I mean.
Why the Left?
I found Marxism when I was a teenager, the same time I turned my back on God. Religion, to me, was always a fancy excuse for why the world was broken. “It’s God’s plan.” “It’s karma.” “It’s fate.” Bullshit. That’s just a way to keep people quiet while they’re being crushed. Marxism was different. It said the world is broken because of people, not gods. And if people broke it, people can fix it.
Marxism doesn’t hate God, by the way. It just sees religion for what it often is: a tool. A way to keep people in their place. Think about casteism—it’s not just a tradition; it’s a system built to oppress, and religion gives it a stamp of approval. And that’s not unique to one religion; it’s the story across the world. Religion tells people to accept suffering because there’s a better life waiting after this one. Meanwhile, the people at the top keep eating steak while the rest gnaw on scraps.
Marx said something that stuck with me: people’s material needs shape their beliefs, not the other way around. Think about it. A starving man doesn’t sit around debating philosophy. He’s thinking about bread. And the systems that control the bread? They control everything else—religion, culture, politics. It’s all tied to who has the bread and who doesn’t.
The Problem with “Fate”
You ever hear someone say, “It’s just my fate” or “Kismat hi kharab hai”? I hear it all the time. It’s defeat disguised as wisdom. It’s dangerous. Because if enough people believe it, nothing ever changes. The world keeps spinning, and the people getting screwed stay screwed. Religion feeds that, whether it means to or not.
Now, I’m not saying everyone on the left is an atheist or a saint. Hell no. There are leftists who believe in God. There’s something called liberation theology that combines Christianity with Marxist principles to fight for justice. My own father is a devout Hindu. He believes in God, but he knows the world’s problems are ours to solve, not some deity’s. He keeps his faith separate from his politics.
On Personal Freedom
You, as a woman, believe in your right to live and love on your own terms. Multiple partners, no strings, your call. Now tell me this: do you think the right-wing crowd would ever back that? They’d call it immoral. They’d call you immoral. The right loves its rules—who you can love, how you can live, what you can think. They’ll put a box around you and nail it shut.
But you’re not meant for boxes. You’re meant for the wide-open, messy, unpredictable world. That’s where the good stories come from.
Closing Thoughts
You said you’re impressionable, and I believe it. That’s not a bad thing. It means you’re still open to the world, still willing to learn and grow.
But if you look up to me—and I think you do—then I’ve got to push you to think a little harder.
Maybe I’ve crossed a line here. If I have, forgive me. This isn’t about converting you to my way of thinking. It’s about giving you something to chew on.
Stay sharp,
Monsieur P
I reply:
My dearest Monsieur P
We don’t have lines in between us. There’s nothing to cross. No abyss. No picket fence. Just a large spread of green grass. And to cross across it, is rather enjoyable.
Hard to digest, that it’s just been what…3 days?
3 glorious days since we’ve known each other.
I won’t put it in flowery language. I won’t be grandeloquent about it (Something I’m learning from you).
I feel less lonely ever since I’ve made your acquaintance. Less lonely and more confident about my writing.
I’ve confided in you seemingly sordid details of my life, that I haven’t confided to anyone else. I feel glad, that I will not have to take those secrets to the grave. Gladder still, that you heard me out patiently. Without judgement. Thank you for that.
Is it odd, that I feel like I’ve known you all my life?
Is it odd, that before you mention something about yourself, I seem to already know it? And that you verbalising it merely validates what I’ve known.
You’ve given me immense food for thought, by explaining your views on Marxism and why you are a leftist. As is with any new concept introduced to me, I shall do my own reading and research prior to forming an opinion. Once I do, you shall be duly informed about it.
You do make a very convincing case, Mon ami!
I was reading something very interesting on love. Love, is a concept I’m still understanding and I wish to delve deeper into what exactly this emotion is all about.
While I was reading, I came across the different categorizations of love. These categories are loosely based on Aristotle and Plato’s thoughts and other classical texts of love.
- Eros – the very pinnacle of romantic love, often times fuelled by physical desire. It is passionate, it is blind, it is potent!
It is said to be what fuels our sexual drives and nudges us to reproduce. Greek myth claims it to be a form of madness, brought about by being hit with one of cupids arrows. You will find a parallel to this in hindu mythology. Yes, I’m referring to the God you and I are big time fans of. Remember how Kaamdev interfered with his deep meditation? - Philia – this kind of love is sustained by a deep friendship and utter good will. It is a non romantic love, often found between good friends. Albeit, this kind of love exists and is highly encouraged between romantic partners too. This kind of love is supporting, non judgemental, very positive and aims at learning from each other and developing into better beings.
- Storge – it’s the hallmark kind of familial love. One that is shared between a parent and a child. Maybe between siblings too. It is borne from dependency and usually is unequal.
- Agape – this is a kind of religious love, one that is fuelled by altruism. Some people call it charity, some people call it worship. It’s a love that you feel for an entity, en masse. It is the kind of love one may harbour for his society, for his country, for mankind.
- Ludus – this is a playful sort of love, characterised by lack of commitment and seriousness. One can liken it to modern day flirting and flings. They are purely casual in nature and for the most part undemanding.
- Pragma – as the name suggests, this is a kind of duty-bound and logical love. It’s practical in nature. I can liken it to the modern day arranged marriages. A marriage of convenience. The kind that was typically done to unite powerful families and for political conquests. The ultimate goal of Pragma, is to make it work. Jean Paul Sartre and Simone De Beauvoire had a long term partnership that culminated into pragma.
- Philautia – to put it very simply, self love. Self esteem, self confidence, ego – it goes by various names. It can be healthy. Or it can even be unhealthy.
While some may view these categorizations as distinct, I feel that they can co exist with each other. Also, any kind of relationship can go through various or all stages of these categories.
For example- a romantic liaison can start with Ludus, evolve into Eros. Maybe then transition into Philia and finally settle down into a Pragma.
Makes me wonder, ought we bother categorising love at all?
Is it a singular feeling or one that has different facets to it?
If it isn’t a singular feeling, then I definitely need to read more on it and understand it better. What causes it? Can we force it out of us? Can we stop feeling it, if we fancy?
Love is a beautiful, albeit painful mystery. The sweet kind of pain.
I liken it to a stab wound. One can either choose to let the dagger remain where it is, not allowing the wound to heal. Or one can twist the dagger around, causing even more pain. One also has the option of removing the dagger and cauterising the area, cleaning the wound and bandaging it. Question is, do you let someone else do it for you, or do you disinfect the wound and clean it yourself? Is it your hand that is twisting the dagger further into your body, or are you letting someone else inflict that pain on you.
Monsieur P, haven’t you lost enough blood from the wound? Come, let me retract the dagger and bandage you up!
Ofcourse after this, you may prefer wearing an armour, so as to prevent further such incidents. Afterall, only fools venture into battle without an armour.
I wore a full body armour for 2 whole years. It felt safe, but there were no battle scars to boast of. Now I’ve shed the armour. There are scars yes. But I wear them with pride and elegance. Proudly displaying them for the world to see. You call me a fool, I call myself a braveheart!
Yours truly
Madame N
Leave a Reply