The first one is saying Nair and Namboodthiri, both aare matriarchal, which is not the case. Namboothiri, the Kerala Brahmin follows Patriarchism.
The second one is saying Guruvayoorappan is an avatar of Lord Krishna. He is not considered as avtar of Krishna, but Krishna himself, more specifically Krishna as an infant.
And the third is Ravi saying the whole issue is because he is of backward caste Ezhava. The issue was his wife being Christian and Hindu Temples in Kerala does'nt allow non hindus to enter temple premises.
So his son was not considered a Hindu because his mother was Christian.
Ravi has every right to feel aggrieved but being a responsibe citizen and a leader of status he should not distort facts ang give it a casteist colour. Especially in Kerala's background where casteism is not at all prevelant.
And besides all Guruvaayoor Temple gets frequent terrorist threats. Allowing any Tom Dick and Haarry to the centureis old shrine is non acceptable.
And temples in Kerala adhere to strong rituals like not allowing people to have non veg food and go inside it. Non Hindus won't adhere to such strict regimen.
RE:Three Wrong Points in the Article
by Libran on Jun 04, 2007 08:36 PM Permalink
All great points Rohit except the main one - "his son is not considered a Hindu becuase his mother was christian" From where did you derive that? IF you look huistorically, philospohically or verse wise - Ravi's son should be a Hindu. It is not a choice for you or me. It is his choice. A separate "conversion" ceremony is not required - as there is no such thing as conversion to hinduism.
