i always wondered why the girls’ hand is below the boys’…..this is how it is in a Tamil Christian wedding too!!!

great post as always.

point taken…and yes protective/loving embrace.

the order of the placement of hands is what struck me as unusual… and this seems to be a tradition

interesting!

There is nothing interesting or new to the fact that in Hindu tradition (i.e. religion), the man taking and holding the right hand of a maiden is considered practically marriage. It’s an important Hindu tradition and derives from the Vedas, as does the tradition of literally giving a daughter’s/female relative’s hand in marriage to the Hindu groom. Even the literal significance of this is repeated among the ancestors of the Bharata heroes of the Mahabharatam: Bhagavan Shukracharya’s daughter Devayani is at one point trapped in a well from which she is rescued by Emperor Yayati, whose hand clasps her right hand when helping her out of the well. Thereafter she, desiring to wed him, reminds him that since the Hindu male took her right hand, he should marry her, as it is a sign (or promise or in itself the act) of marriage.

Meenakshi’s birth herself was due to the Vedic Yagnyas organised by the Tamizh Hindu royalty who wished for children and who were devoted to Uma. Meenakshi’s wedding is therefore also very Hindu: naturally, Sundareshwara took her right hand, as this is a Vedic (that is, specifically Hindu) tradition, recognised by most Hindus throughout Bharatam, including ancient Tamizh Nadu.

“Interesting” is rather the custom among Indian Christians to give sacred names belonging to other unrelated religions (such as Hellenism) to their kind. Alexandros, for instance, like its female counterpart Alexandra and derived variants, were always sacred religious names in Hellenism and, like all Hellenistic religious terms, it means more than merely its literal meaning would seem to moderns and outsiders.

Therefore, even since early Christianity’s early history, Christians were barred from giving names that were not christian (specifically, those names not from the Old Testament) by 4th century Church Fathers Starting of course with the Greek names themselves: the injunctions have been translated by Greeks at http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/FILELL.pdf
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM forbids use of Greek names: “None must call his children the (Greek) ancestors’ names, be that of their father, their mother, their grandfather or their great grandfather, but instead you must use those of the righteous (of the Old Testament)” [John Chrysostom DE INANI GLORIA ET DE EDUCANDIS LIBERIS (690) 641.65]

Prohibition of all non-Christian names continued to be specifically stressed throughout the centuries, including by prominent Protestant reformers (the latter did include New Testament names as admissable). Recently, the current pope naturally reiterated for his western flock the old Christian insistence on what names are allowed: only Christian names.
Still, perhaps people know to remain grateful that not all Christians in India have started pretending Hindu names are for similarly for pillaging.