Here is what Rajdeep Sardesai had, to say about the protests against the movie padmavati.
His argument is completely reasonable. If I oppose something on the basis that my sentiments are hurt, I have to agree with anyone who opposes something using the same argument. Or else admit that I am a hypocrite.
But in this case I don’t think anybody made the argument that the movie should be banned or pre screened for a community because sentiments were hurt. The argument is that history has been distorted and not sentiments were hurt. Sentiments were hurt because history was distorted. Get it?
Now did Taslima/Rushdie distort history? No? So the argument doesn’t stand.
Now let’s look at what a straw man fallacy is –
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
Now what if Rajdeep wasn’t attacking a straw man and was being honest? I completely agree with him. People who use the argument “my sentiments were hurt” themselves, shouldn’t protest when others use the same. Of course they can, but doing so would be hypocritical. But here I don’t think anybody is using such an argument and Rajdeep is just attacking a straw man.