Taking cues from Nietzsche we should not only concede the enemy in the friend but also recognise in advance so that we may not be caught unawares and be saved of increased blood-pressure levels and doctor bills. Our best friend is endowed with the capability of becoming our worst enemy. It is always for sure. A stranger can be an enemy but not worst enemy. Remember Brutus, for instance. We always say that Caesar was so strong that he would not have died even if millions of daggers were to pierce him but for the one dagger of betrayal that penetrated his heart and took away his last breath. That others were interested in the death of Caesar was of no matter to the mighty emperor, but his bosom friend saw a point in it made him give up all his hope for survival. If my death would benefit Brutus, so be it, thought Caesar and died of heart-break, not of haemorrhage, we may categorically conclude. Nevertheless, this does not always happen in Shakespearean dramas and present Hindi movies, but in reality too. A person who had this soul-bending/mending experience wisely knows that love is just an absence of hate as day is just an absence of night. In the words of Jaques Derrida: if you want a friend, you must wage war on him, and capable of it, capable of having a ‘best enemy.’ To be capable of this friendship, to be able to honour in the friend the enemy he can become, is a sign of freedom. Freedom itself. Now this is a freedom that neither tyrants not slaves know.”(1997: 282). One should be capable of respecting the enemy, of honouring what one does not love. Incapable of such a respect, incapable of the freedom entailed by that respect, one could never have either friends or enemies as such. “Only a free and respectful consciousness could ever attain to this as such, this phenomenal essence of the friend or enemy, as well as of the couple they form (ibid.).”