when i said any society ,I was taking about degree of tolerance for disrespect of the religion that society belongs to...not the unmindfulness or even encourgement witnessed for the same in unconcerned societies belonging to other sects.
Yes, I got that. Thats what I meant by
one can have it in any way one wishes, just as long as one stays away from my sentiments.
An Wrong assumption.
I'm sure Rushdies, and Nasrins and Theo van Gogs are celebrated not because they committed blasphemy,but for the quality of thier creativity.
Rushdis
The Satanic Verses is not noted for his literary work, and is certainly not in the same category as
Midnights Children. Nasrins writings are nowhere close to being literature far from it. I havent watched van Gogs films, but I hear he was good. People rallied behind them, not because of the quality of their creativity, but, as you have correctly noted, because they were, and continues to be, victims of religious fanaticism. The same fanaticism of which Hussain is a victim.
BTW,Satanic verse was banned in india
And it is equally condemnable.
we only sympathize with Writers like Rushdies, and Nasrins when they get Fatwas on their head rather than condone their seemingly anti islamic opinion, though both Rushdies, and Nasrins have tried to explain their position on numerous occasions.
How different is Hussains situation from the one hit by a fatwa. He fears for his life in his home country, his art faces the threat of being vandalized, even anybody sponsoring his art faces the threat from these religious fanatics. Why is it then so hard to sympathize with him? Is it because that his fatwa like situation is because he, unlike the others, has hit our sensibilities reared by our religion?
In any case, not condoning Hussain for upsetting ones sensibility doesnt mean that one has to hound him down and drive him away from his home.
And why should other people tolerate ur rudeness if u insult their religion in the name of freedom of expression.
No, they dont have to. Thats the beauty of freedom. The same way as I am not bound to give sh*t to your religious irrationalities, you are also not bound to give sh*t to what I think of your religiosity. But that doesnt mean that one gets to threaten bodily harm, simply because one doesn't agree with someone. There is a thin red line between protesting and stifling ones right by threats. The former is not the issue. The later is.
Anyway,Rushdies would not have found a very safe refuge in UK,had he wrote erotic story involving Jesus and his family memebers...
Strawman.
MH Hussain's case is one such rude attempt...i may give him benefit of doubt due to the his ignorance of hindu religion.But he should've come clean on this on his own.An public apology would've been enough to put an end this controversy.Instead he willfully choose to remain insolent disregarding the sentiments of hindus who make majority religious group in his native land.
I am willing to assume that the part highlighted was one of those momentary lapse of reason. What you are essentially saying is that sentiments of the majority must always be given precedence and/or catered to, by the minority. The flip side is, the majority do not have to care for the sentiments of the minority.
I am personally glad that Hussain didn't apologize to compromise with these wingnuts.
As long as MH Hussain doesnt care much for hindu sentiments ...I dont think he or his art would find a secure place in india which is unfortunate as this controversy aside he is a great artist.
How is that sentiment different from the religious fanaticism of the fatwas against Rushdies and Nasrins and van Gogs etc. that apparently makes you sympathize with these men. Instead of condemning that sentiment, you seem to rallying behind it all the while sugercoating it by calling it 'unfortunate'.
Anyway he probably more happy to stay in Dubai and draw more such stupid painting of hindu godess rather than realise his mistake.
In my book, he didn't make any mistake to realise.
So much for freedom of expression.
. 
