Malankara Sabha Peace initiative

An Appeal for Truth and Justice based Peace in the Malankara Syrian Christian Community

Introduction

The century old faction fight going on in the Kerala Christian community have become a serious social and political problem in Kerala and a law and order problem for the Government The unending legal fights from various lower courts to the supreme court are depleting the finance of various parishes of the Church . Besides the faith of ordinary men and women, especially the youth are getting distorted, many viewing their church as a commercial institution rather than a place to go for peace of mind, solitude and sharing brotherhood in Jesus Christ. This discussion is an attempt to explore an amicable solution based on Christan Values

As followers of Jesus Christ, the church members, especially the priests and high priests are called to ground their lives in His teachings and the eternal truths He taught. Reflect on one of the most profound declarations made by Jesus before Pontius Pilate: “For this because I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice. and follow me” (John 18:37)
This powerful statement reminds all that truth is not merely a principle—it is the very essence of faith and the foundation of Christian living. As the shepherds of God’s flock and as members of His Church, it is incumbent upon all to not only seek the truth but also to courageously stand witness to it, as Jesus did. This pursuit must be carried out with humility, love, and an unwavering commitment to justice.
A Call to Objective Introspection
The long-standing division within the Malankara Syrian Christian community has caused pain and discord for over a century. Courts have intervened, parishes have been fractured, and even the streets have borne witness to our internal struggles. While such conflicts may seem insurmountable, Christ’s teachings offer a path forward—a call to unity through truth and justice.
We must embark on an introspective journey:
*To objectively seek truth, independent of individual or group emotions.
*To move beyond the rulings of courts and consider the higher moral vision of justice as envisioned by Jesus Christ.
*To reconcile historical facts with the Christian values of forgiveness, humility, and love.
This search for truth and justice must be free of bias and rooted in a Christ-centered perspective. As Scripture teaches us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.” (Matthew 5:9) Peace cannot exist without truth, and truth cannot flourish without justice.
The Power of Empathy in Building Bridges
A crucial aspect of this journey is the ability to examine ourselves and cultivate a sense of empathy in our hearts. Empathy is one of the most profound characteristics that Jesus demonstrated throughout His ministry. Time and again, He placed Himself in the position of others—understanding their pain, their needs, and their struggles. As His followers, we are duty-bound to do the same.
Empathy means that each of us must pause and consider: What does the other side want? How do they feel? Only by understanding the feelings and needs of the opposite side can we begin to truly engage in meaningful dialogue. This ability to empathize is not only the cornerstone of successful negotiation but also a distinctly Christian virtue. Let us remember that empathy is not a sign of weakness but a reflection of Christ’s love, calling us to connect deeply with one another and work toward reconciliation.
Reimagining Resolutions in the Spirit of Christ
While respecting the laws of the land, Christians are called to think beyond legal frameworks to create resolutions that are deeply aligned with the teachings of Jesus. This may require us to:
*Set aside personal pride and institutional egos.
*Embrace forgiveness and reconciliation as acts of faith.
*Work collectively to ensure that our decisions honor God and reflect the love and unity He desires for His Church.
Let us commit ourselves to “Christianize” our evaluations, ensuring that every step we take is firmly rooted in the Gospel. Only by doing so can we hope to achieve a peace that is both lasting and real—a peace that glorifies God and heals the wounds of division.
A Truthful Evaluation of Historical Facts
Search for truth and justice must begin with an honest evaluation of historical facts surrounding the Malankara Syrian Christian Church. To this end, we must acknowledge and reflect on the following:
*The Apostolic Foundation of the Malankara Church
The Malankara Christian community traces its origins to St. Thomas the Apostle, who established the Church in AD 52.
Ecumenical Synods and Jurisdictional Divisions
*After the persecution of Christians ended under Emperor Constantine, the First Ecumenical Synod was convened at Nicaea in AD 325. Canon 6 of this synod defined the jurisdiction of different Churches, granting privileges to the Church of Antioch over the Church of the East (known also as the Persian Church, Assyrian Church, or Babylonian Church).
*Although the Malankara Church was not explicitly mentioned in Canon 6, it is reasonable to assume it was included under the jurisdiction of the Church of the East. This, the fundamental faith, is also affirmed in the Indian Supreme Court-approved 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church, which emphasizes adherence to the Nicaea Synod as a prerequisite for membership.
*The Second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople in AD 381 reaffirmed these jurisdictional divisions through Canon 2, reiterating Antioch’s privileges but clarifying that the churches over which Antioch has privileges shall manage their temporal affairs by themselves .
Early Frictions and Agreements
*Historical records show friction regarding Antioch’s jurisdiction over the Church of the East, dating back to at least AD 424.
*The Synod of Capharthutha formalized relationship between the two Churches, establishing the Patriarch of Antioch as “first among equals” while granting temporal autonomy to the Church of the East. This agreement emphasized non-interference in each other’s temporal administration.
Splits and Realignments
*Both the Church of Antioch and the Church of the East experienced multiple splits and realignments due to political, ecclesiastical, and social factors, often driven by individual ambitions and inter denominational rivalry. These divisions weakened all the Churches over time.
*The Malankara Church in Kerala operated with considerable independence, governed by a secular leader known as the “Jathikku Karthavian,” a role traditionally held by the Pakalomattam family. The Church managed its temporal matters internally and relied on the Church of the East for spiritual support. As seen above Antioch had the same privileges, over Malankara Church, as it is included in the Church of the East
Post-Chalcedonian Developments
*Following the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, the Church of the East was branded as Nestorian and distanced itself from the Oriental Orthodox faith of Antioch.
*In response, Jacob Baradaeus reestablished Oriental Orthodoxy in the Church of the east by consecrating parallel leadership in opposition to the Nestorian catholicos of the Church of the East. This Jacob Baradaeus group was later called as Jacobite. It is unclear whether the Malankara Church aligned with the original (alleged Nestorian) Church of the East or the Jacobite group during and after the Baradaeus time. (6th century)
No reliable History from AD 52–1498
• It remains uncertain to which Church—the original Church of the East or the Jacobite faction—the Malankara Church was aligned before the arrival of Portuguese missionaries in AD 1498. This period invites further exploration to discern the Church’s historical path. Claims of the two factions as well as the interpretation of history by other Christian denominations are all done with hidden goals to prove that the writer’s group is right. The absence of recorded history, and the alleged destruction of records in the 1599 Diampur sunahadoss has created a gray area and confusion.

Developments and Changes in the Malankara Church After the Arrival of Western Missionaries
The arrival of Western missionaries alongside Portuguese traders in the sixteenth century marked a turning point in the history of the Malankara Syrian Christian Church. This era witnessed profound upheavals that reshaped the identity and structure of the Church, leading to a series of divisions that led to the emergence of multiple Christian denominations. While the pre-15th-century history of the Church remains ambiguous and subject to varying interpretations, the narratives that have emerged after the arrival of Western influence are often biased and shaped by the perspectives of individual factions. A reasonable and independent evaluation of historical developments reveals the following:
Portuguese Influence and Forced Latinization
*The Portuguese missionaries, with the support of local rulers, attempted to bring the Malankara Christians under the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome.
*They enforced new forms of worship and practices in line with the Latin Church, dismissing the existing Eastern traditions as heretical.
*The traditional authority of the “Jathikku Karthaviyan” or “Archadion,” who had governed the Malankara Church’s temporal matters, was virtually dismantled under this imposed rule.
Resistance and the Historic Coonan Cross Oath (1653)
*The imposition of foreign control was met with widespread resistance from the majority of Malankara Christians.
*In 1653, a historic revolt took place at the Koonen Kurishu Church in Kochi, where a large section of the faithful (86 out of 116 churches and over 25000 strong warrior like demonstrators ) renounced the Latin Church’s rule and declared Malankara’s allegiance to the Patriarch of Antioch.
*This event marked the first major split within the Malankara Church. While many returned to the fold of the Latin Church following tactical moves by Rome(now known as the Syro-Malabar Church, the largest Christian denomination in Kerala), a significant faction remained loyal to the Patriarch of Antioch, later becoming known as the Jacobite Church.
Subsequent Splits Within the Jacobite Church
*Over time, the Jacobite Church itself fractured into multiple denominations, including:
*Thozhiyoor Church (an independent church).`
*Marthoma Church (another independent group emphasizing reformation).
*Syro Malankara Reeth Church (those who returned to allegiance to the Pope of Rome).
Patriarchal Control and Internal Conflicts
*The Jacobite faction that remained after the above three splits under the Patriarch of Antioch faced growing tensions over the extent of the Patriarch’s temporal authority.
*To manage the Church’s affairs, the Patriarch instituted a Malankara Association, (1886)which included a Synod of Bishops, representative priests, and lay people from various parishes.
*However, disputes arose again when Patriarch Abdullah excommunicated the Malankara Metropolitan, Bishop Dionysius,(1910)who was serving as the Trustee of the Malankara Association.
The Role of Political and External Influences
*Patriarch Abdullah himself had been enthroned with the approval (firman) of Turkish authorities, (after dismissing Abdel Messiah) who controlled Antioch at the time. The Turkish government’s involvement in patriarchal appointments added another layer of complexity to the Malankara Church’s leadership disputes.
*Bishop Dionysius, opposing Patriarch Abdullah who enthroned him in 1906, invited the ‘dethroned’ Patriarch Abdel Messiah to Malankara and persuaded him to reestablish the throne of the Catholicos, and relocate it to, Kerala. This catholicos position is presumed to be the continuation of the parallel catholicos position established by Jacob Baradaeus in the 6th century but stood discontinued
Creation of the Catholicate Led to the Major Split
*The reestablishment of the Catholicate in Kerala marked a turning point, as it created a significant division within the Jacobite Church.
*This division led to prolonged court battles and violent confrontations over issues of temporal and spiritual authority. The unresolved disputes persist to this day, manifesting in bitter rivalries between the two factions.

Towards an Honest Understanding of Post-1912 Developments in the Malankara Church
Any sincere effort to establish peace within the Malankara Church must begin with a clear, independent, and truthful understanding of the events that have unfolded since the re-establishment of the Catholicate in 1912. To achieve reconciliation, it is essential to objectively analyze not just the spiritual and ecclesiastical dimensions but also the administrative and property-related issues that have historically divided the Church. The groundwork for these divisions was laid much earlier, particularly during the Mulanthuruthy Synod of 1886, convened by Patriarch Peter III and Malankara Metropolitan Dionysius (Pulikottil Thirumeni).
Key Events Leading Up to 1912
The Mulanthuruthy Synod and Formation of the Malankara Association
*The Mulanthuruthy Synod conducted under the patronship of patriarch Pathrose III established the Malankara Syrian Christian Association, a body tasked with overseeing spiritual and administrative matters of the Church. (The main purpose of the visit of Pathrose III was to save the Church’s faith from the powerful reformist movement led by Athanasios with the blessings of western machineries )
*The Patriarch of Antioch was recognized as the spiritual head (Patron), while the Malankara Metropolitan served as the president of the Association.
*This arrangement provided a structural framework for the Church’s governance, but it also sowed seeds of future disputes over temporal authority.
The Dispute Over Church Funds and Court Interventions
*A significant dispute arose over who would receive the interest from Church funds deposited with the (British Indian) government.
*The court initially ruled in favor of Bishop Athanasios, who was consecrated by the Patriarch but later aligned with reformist ideologies, leading to the formation of the Marthoma Church.
*The involvement of Patriarch Pathrose III who visited queen Victoria and the British and local rulers in British India led to a reversal of this ruling, restoring the right to the Jacobite Malankara Metropolitan, underscoring the importance of patriarchal approval for holding this title.
Tensions with Patriarch Abdullah and the 1912 Re-establishment of the Catholicate
*Between 1909 and 1912, friction escalated between Patriarch Abdullah and Malankara Metropolitan Dionysius. Patriarch Abdulla excommunicated Dionysius.
*In 1912, Bishop Ivanios, a prominent and academically highly qualified supporter of Dionysius, orchestrated the invitation of the dethroned Patriarch Abdel Messiah to Malankara to re-establish the Catholicate in India.
*The first Catholicos, Murimattathil Thirumeni, was enthroned but passed away within a year, leaving the position vacant until 1925.
The Role of Key Figures and Events
*Dionysius continued as Malankara Metropolitan despite being dismissed by Patriarch Abdullah. The patriarch faction appointed a parallel Malankara Metropolitan. (The patriarch faction elected a parallel Malankara Metropolitan who ruled from Aluva)
*In 1925, Geevarghese I was consecrated as the second Catholicos of orthodox faction, but he passed away in 1928. This led to the enthronement of Geevarghese II, further consolidating the Catholicate position in Malankara.
*Speculation arose that Bishop Ivanios, a staunch supporter of Dionysius, hoped to be made Catholicos but was sidelined. This, coupled with dissatisfaction over leadership decisions, and fed up with the faction fight, led to his eventual defection to the Catholic Church, forming the Syro Malankara Reeth Church.
* Thus the malankara Church split into three groups during the time of Dionysius as Malankara Metropolitan
Court Cases and Property Disputes
*The disputes between the Patriarchal faction (Bava Kakshi) and the Metropolitan faction (Methran Kakshi) became entangled in protracted legal battles.
*A key case, popularly known as the “Vattipanam Case” (Interest Money Case), centered on who held the right to the interest from Church funds.
*These disputes were not primarily about spiritual authority but revolved around control of Church properties and finances.
*Socio-Political Influences and Internal Rivalries
*The Bava Kakshi enjoyed the support of some ultra-wealthy families, while the Methran Kakshi was strongly backed by the influential Malayala Manorama media group.
*Personal and familial rivalries among individuals within these factions exacerbated the conflict, undermining efforts at reconciliation.
An Honest impartial Understanding of the Court Cases
To navigate this complex history, an overall review of the court cases is essential. These cases highlight the following key points:
*The legal disputes have often overshadowed spiritual concerns, focusing primarily on material assets and administrative authority.
*Despite legal victories and losses on both sides, the core issues of unity, governance, and spiritual leadership remain unresolved.
*The bitterness and hostility stemming from these legal battles have deeply divided the faithful, leading to physical confrontations at parish levels and other institutions.

Court Cases and the Struggle for Authority (1912 to Present)
The re-establishment of the Catholicate in 1912 marked the beginning of a prolonged series of legal battles between the factions within the Malankara Church. These court cases have persisted for over a century, with only brief periods of unity, between 1958 and 1970 when the two factions came together. The legal disputes have revolved around questions of authority, property rights, and administrative control, significantly impacting the Church’s unity and spiritual mission.
Key Legal Milestones
*Early Legal Disputes Post-1912
*Almost immediately after the Catholicate was re-established, court cases were filed by factions loyal to the Patriarch (Bava Kakshi) and those aligned with the Malankara Metropolitan and Catholicos (Methran Kakshi).
*The disputes centered on the legality of the re-established Catholicate and its claim to temporal and spiritual authority over the Church.
*The 1934 Constitution :In 1934, the Malankara Church (Orthodox faction) adopted a constitution that clarified its governance structure, reaffirming the roles of the Catholicos and the Malankara Metropolitan.
*This constitution also emphasized the acceptance of the decisions of the Nicaea Synod as a fundamental tenet of faith and Church membership.
*The Patriarchal faction disputed the authority of the 1934 Constitution, leading to further legal confrontations.
Unity and Split: The 1958 Supreme Court Verdict
*In 1958, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment recognizing the validity of the 1934 Constitution, the re- establishment of Catholicate and its relocation to India by the Patriarch Abdel Messiah and upholding , virtually all temporal, and delegated (By Patriarch) spiritual, authority of the Catholicos.
*Following this verdict, the two factions briefly reunited, creating a period of peace and collaboration.
*However, disagreements resurfaced in the 1970s, primarily over administrative and property rights, leading to another split. A major faith issue created by the orthodox faction was the new claim of autocephality of the Malankara Sabha,and a claim of establishment of a throne by disciple of Jesus, St. Thomas In Malankara . According to them the Malankara Church was totally autocephalous having nothing to do with Patriarch .
*The Vattipanam Case and Other Property Disputes
*These property disputes often overshadowed spiritual matters, fueling animosity and mistrust between the factions.
Legal Developments Post-1970
*The split in the 1970s reignited court battles, with both sides seeking legal validation for their claims over Church properties, parishes, and administrative structures.
*These cases have continued to this day, with the Supreme Court delivering multiple judgments favoring one faction or the other at different times. Despite these rulings, implementation at the parish level has often been met with resistance and violence.
Impact on the Faithful
*The ongoing legal battles have deeply divided the faithful, creating hostility even within families and local communities.
*These disputes have eroded trust in Church leadership and distracted from the Church’s spiritual mission, leaving a legacy of bitterness and division.

Lessons from the 1958-1970 Unity Period
The brief period of unity from 1958 to 1970 serves as a reminder that reconciliation is possible. During this time:
*The factions worked together under a single administrative framework, respecting the 1934 Constitution and the roles of both the Patriarch and the Catholicos.
*This period demonstrated that mutual respect, dialogue, and compromise could pave the way for lasting peace, for the vast majority of people
*However, the collapse of unity in the 1970s underscores the need for deeper introspection and a commitment to addressing the root causes of the conflict.

Below, are some critical issues, including some hidden causes, that led to the split in the 1970s after the 1958 unity,

1. Discrimination and Residual Hatred Post-Unity
*After the 1958 unity, the Church flourished initially under joint administration. However, remnants of pre-1958 animosity persisted among certain hardliner elements within the administration.
*Some top level orthodox faction members treated those previously aligned with patriarch faction as second class individuals. This attitude manifested in subtle and overt ways, including confrontational incidents that led to walkouts and fights from Governing committees
*A sense of being labeled as “you defeated; Listen to us and take what we offer or leave” by hardcore orthodox people created resentment among the erstwhile Patriarch faction, fostering a divide that eroded the spirit of unity.
2. Regional, Social, and Economic Divides
*An invisible divide existed within the Church, stretching from the top clergy to the lay faithful, often influenced by regional distinctions between the north and south of Kerala, with Kottayam as a ‘line of division’.
*Historically, the “northerners” lagged in education and economic standing, (but this gap has now narrowed significantly). Despite these changes, remnants of business, family, and social status divide have persisted within Church forums and management circles, further fragmenting the community.
3. Grievances of the Patriarch Faction
*Discrimination in appointments to key Church roles, including the Catholicos designate, diocesan assignments, and elections to management committees, became a recurring grievance for those from the erstwhile Patriarch faction.
*Even respected figures with exemplary public service records were allegedly sidelined due to their pre 1958 association with the Patriarch faction, intensifying feelings of marginalization.
4. The Rise of the “Autocephalous” Theory
A significant ideological rift was fueled by the autocephalous theory, advanced predominantly by the Orthodox leadership under Catholicos-designate Mathews I in the late 1960s.
*This theory posited that the Malankara Church had been autocephalous since AD 52 and that the Catholicos sat on the Throne of St. Thomas in Kerala. This claim was seen by some as a theological and historical assertion to diminish the Patriarch’s significance.
*The theory sparked discomfort among many from the Patriarch faction, who perceived it as a deliberate effort to sever ties with the Patriarch of Antioch. For them, the Church of Antioch and its Patriarch was a figure of great spiritual importance, and the diminishing of his role deepened the divide.
5. Revolt by the Patriarch Faction
*Discontent within the Patriarch faction, combined with the perceived dominance of the Orthodox leadership, led to a revolt.
*Some leaders from the Patriarch faction accused the Orthodox leadership of undermining the Patriarch and propagated fears of marginalization. These grievances resonated with a large section of the faithful who revered the Patriarch of Antioch.
*The exchange of letters between the Catholicos and the Patriarch further exacerbated tensions. The Patriarch’s dismissive statement, questioning the Orthodox claim that St. Thomas established a throne, fueled mistrust and division.
6. Parallel Leadership and Split
*In a contentious development, two priests from the Patriarch faction, who otherwise lacked academic qualifications for episcopal election as bishops in the Church, convinced the Patriarch to consecrate them as bishops. They worked so hard, organizing people who respected and revered the Patriarch, and convinced patriarch to consecrate a parallel Catholicos ( Paulose I) solidifying the divide
*One of the priests who got elevated by patriarch earlier as bishop, (Thomas I) later became the parallel Catholicos , after the death of first parallel catholicos Paulose I
*The enthronement of a parallel Catholicate under the Patriarch marked a definitive rupture, creating two parallel hierarchies within the Malankara Church.
Lessons from the Post-1958 Period
The post-1958 unity period reveals how unresolved grievances, power dynamics, and ideological differences can undermine even the most promising efforts at reconciliation. Key lessons from this era include:
*Addressing Past Grievances: True unity requires acknowledging and addressing the legitimate concerns of all parties, rather than dismissing them as baseless or insignificant.
*Avoiding Triumphalist Narratives: Efforts to advance unilateral historical or theological claims, such as the autocephalous theory, denial of Patriarch’s spiritual headship must be tempered with sensitivity to the beliefs and sentiments of others. Equally important is the need to avoid statements diminishing the significance of St. Thomas and denying his priesthood, who is so revered by all Christians of Kerala
*Promoting Equal Representation: Ensuring fair and transparent representation in Church leadership and administration is essential for fostering trust and inclusion. Creating classes within the governing bodies based on business status , positions held in Government, wealth etc create friction
*Focusing on Common Goals: The Church must prioritize its shared spiritual mission over ideological or administrative disputes, emphasizing the unity that Christ calls us to embody
The Split Deepens
The enthronement of Paulose I, (and later Thomas I after the death of Paulose I )as parallel catholicos in1974 marked a dark chapter creating deep rift at the central leadership and at parish levels expelling opposite faction members if they are minority.
Several cases reappeared in the courts.

The 1995 Supreme Court Judgment
The culmination of numerous court cases, consolidated under the Supreme Court’s direction, led to yet another landmark 1995 judgment. While this ruling was perceived by many as favoring the Orthodox faction, it was, in fact, a balanced directive aimed at reunifying the Church. The court made several key observations and directions:
*Affirmation of the 1934 Constitution:
*The court upheld the validity of the 1934 Constitution, affirming it as the governing framework for the Malankara Church.
*However, it also recognized the concerns of the Patriarch faction and directed that ambiguities and doubts in the Constitution be addressed through mutual discussion and amendment.
*Baseline for Reconciliation:The court established January 1, 1971, as the baseline for reconciliation, preserving the status quo of Church administration as it existed at that date.
Court Direction for Reunification:
*The court strongly emphasized the need for the two factions to work together and reestablish a unified Church.
*It directed the holding of a joint Malankara Association to elect a Malankara Metropolitan, ensuring that both factions and independently elected representatives from all the parishes were represented.
*Oversight of the Election:To ensure fairness, the court appointed a retired judge to oversee the Malankara Association meeting and election process.
The Period Between 1995 and 2002: Resistance and Missed Opportunities
The 1995 Supreme Court judgment offered a historic opportunity for the reunification of the Malankara Church, providing a clear roadmap that balanced the interests of both factions. The court affirmed the validity of the 1934 Constitution and directed the factions to work together, amend the Constitution to address ambiguities and concerns, and elect a unified Malankara Metropolitan through a joint Malankara Association. Despite these directives, the seven-year period leading up to the 2002 Malankara Association meeting was marked by resistance, mistrust, and missed opportunities, driven largely by hardliners within both factions.
Resistance Within the Orthodox Faction
*A hardliner group within the Orthodox faction emerged as a significant obstacle to the unity process. These individuals opposed the inclusion of bishops, priests, and laity from the Patriarch faction into the unified Church.
*This group revolted against their own Orthodox Catholicos, Mathews II who demonstrated a conciliatory approach toward members of the Patriarch faction. The Catholicos treated them with respect and actively sought to facilitate reconciliation, earning the ire of the hardliners.
*The hardliners went so far as to threaten legal action against their own Catholicos, undermining his authority and complicating efforts to implement the court’s directives. This internal revolt within the Orthodox faction delayed progress toward unity and showcased the deep-rooted divisions even within the factions themselves.
Obstruction by the Patriarch Faction
*On the Patriarch side, hardliners resisted the unity efforts outright, creating deliberate obstructions in the peace process. They expressed skepticism about the impartiality of the Court appointed observer.
*Instead of addressing genuine concerns—such as ensuring transparent and impartial elections of parish representatives, avoiding duplication of representation, amending the 1934 constitution to assure freedom at Parish level etc., they focused primarily on securing positions of influence for their negotiating team in a would be unified Church.
*Their strategy during negotiations revolved around short-term gains, prioritizing their top brasses’ control over parishes and administrative structures rather than working toward a sustainable and inclusive framework for unity.
Missed Opportunities in Amending the 1934 Constitution
*The court’s directive to amend the 1934 Constitution provided a crucial chance to resolve ambiguities and address the legitimate concerns of the Patriarch faction. However, this opportunity was misused by the hardliners from both sides. patriarch faction’s focus was to assure key positions for certain negotiating leaders
*Both factions’ negotiating teams sought to list even sub-parishes under their control as full parishes , in order to create majority in the malankara Association. This approach did not consider the long-term implications for fair governance or the unity of the Church.
Deepening Polarization
*The actions of hardliners on both sides exacerbated mistrust and division among clergy and laity. Instead of fostering reconciliation, this period saw further polarization, with each faction entrenching its position and fostering narratives of victimization.
*Mistrust toward the court’s directives, combined with the internal politics of each faction, delayed the implementation of the 1995 judgment and weakened the goodwill necessary for meaningful negotiations.
*The prolonged delays and lack of progress eroded trust in the unity process. Clergy and laity from both factions became increasingly skeptical of the intentions of the other side, viewing every step as a potential threat to their autonomy and influence.
*The absence of genuine efforts to address the root causes of division—such as shared leadership, equitable representation, and mutual respect—meant that the eventual 2002 Malankara Association meeting was approached with lingering hostility and skepticism. The patriarch hardliners walked out of the negotiation meeting conducted by the court appointed observer alleging that he was partisan favoring the orthodox faction.
*This critical period highlights several key lessons for the Malankara Church:
1.Hardliners Are Detrimental to Unity: Resistance from hardliners within both factions delayed progress and undermined the conciliatory efforts of moderate leaders.
2.Missed Opportunities Have Long-Term Consequences: The failure to amend the 1934 Constitution in a balanced and forward-looking manner created challenges that continue to affect the Church today.
3.Reconciliation Requires Mutual Trust: Without addressing the mistrust and grievances between factions, even the most well-intentioned court directives cannot lead to lasting peace.
4.Short-Term Gains Undermine Long-Term Goals: The Patriarch faction’s focus on immediate control over parishes, and positions in the central administration, rather than structural reforms, ultimately weakened their position in the long run.
Lessons from 1995 to 2002
The Orthodox Faction: Arrogance in Triumph
1.Following the 1995 judgment, the Orthodox faction emerged emboldened, interpreting the court’s recognition of the 1934 Constitution as a decisive victory. They virtually treated those who came forward for unity with contempt and sidelined them. A hardliner group within the Orthodox leadership resisted integration efforts and rejected the inclusion of clergy and laity from the Patriarch faction into Church governance.
*The arrogance of the hardliners alienated not only the Patriarch faction but also moderate voices within their own faction, stalling any real progress toward unity.
The Patriarch Faction: Defiance and Missteps
On the other side, hardliners within the Patriarch faction outright rejected the unity process. They obstructed genuine efforts to amend the 1934 Constitution, focusing instead on consolidating their control over parishes and securing influential positions in the would be unified Church.
*Their approach during negotiations emphasized short-term dominance rather than creating a fair and inclusive framework for governance.
*The failure to engage constructively in the constitution amendment process became a significant liability, as later court rulings (notably in 2017) solidified the Orthodox faction’s authority under the very Constitution they resisted amending.
*The Fallout of the Parallel Society in 2002.The creation of a parallel society by the Patriarch faction in 2002, in direct defiance of the court’s directives, cemented the divide and made reconciliation even more difficult.
*This act was seen as a challenge to the court’s authority, earning the Patriarch faction a reputation as defiant and uncooperative, which might have influenced even the courts’ later legal decisions. A series of cases were filed in the courts again.
The Period Between 2002 and 2017: From Hope to Despair and Deepened Division
The acts of the two factions particularly the hardliners drove a deep wedge between the factions and marked the beginning of a new phase of hostility. Several court cases appeared in the courts. Streets of Kerala witnessed demonstrations matching that of militants and extremist political parties which led to another landmark Judgement on July 3, 2017.

The 2017 Supreme Court Judgment: A Watershed Moment
The 2017 Supreme Court judgment came as a significant development in the ongoing disputes, with far-reaching consequences for both factions:
The Orthodox Faction’s Triumph
*The court’s ruling once more, upheld the 1934 Constitution as the governing framework for the Malankara Church, granting the Orthodox faction complete administrative control over all parishes and properties. A firm directive that all the parishes ,and church properties should be governed according to 1934 constitution was issued.
*The ruling reaffirmed the 1995 judgement, Orthodox Catholicos’ authority, both spiritual and temporal, effectively declaring the Patriarch’s temporal authority over the Malankara Church as non-existent.
*This decision handed the Orthodox faction an overwhelming advantage, described by some as gifting a garden of flowers when only a single flower was requested.”
The Patriarch Faction’s Defeat
*The ruling was a devastating blow to the Patriarch faction, which was required to hand over control of churches, parishes, and associated properties—even in cases where patriarch faction has overwhelming majority .
*The court’s language, describing the Patriarch’s temporal authority in Malankara as being “at the vanishing point,” solidified the Patriarch faction’s weakened position. The orthodox faction took it as a blank check to entirely remove the patriarch stripping all his spiritual and temporal powers over the Malankara Church
* Patriarch faction responded by alleging corruption, saying that the supreme court judgement was “purchased” through bribes and influence
Post-2017: Actions and Reaction
Orthodox Faction’s Conduct
*Empowered by the 2017 ruling, the Orthodox leadership adopted a triumphalist approach, aggressively asserting control over parishes and properties, often in areas where the Patriarch faction had overwhelming majority of members and local support.
*Tactics included: Mobilizing a handful of parish members loyal to the Orthodox faction in predominantly Patriarch-aligned parishes, securing court orders for takeover, and demanding the Government and law enforcement to enforce these orders. Once occupied by force, they removed all signs, boards, emblems and icons that had any kind of connection with the sitting or former patriarchs. Such actions included burning of pictures of holy fathers whom many faithful revered and considered as saints
*Denying basic spiritual services, such as baptism, marriage, and burial of the dead to the patriarch faction members who refused to submit to the Orthodox-appointed clergy and administrators and expelling them, for their failure to make their confession(a holly sacrament per Church Canon for absolution from sins by confessing before a priest who one trust) in front of the orthodox appointed priest, and take oath of allegiance to the 1934 constitution. These actions effectively removed Patriarch-aligned members from seized parishes’ rolls on technical grounds, creating further alienation. There have been cases of dead bodies of patriarch faithful not allowed to be buried for weeks and months.
*These actions of the orthodox hardliners were responded with street demonstrations by the patriarch side, which have many a time, turned violent creating serious law and order problems. Patriarch side faithful made temporary sheds on roadsides and conducted worship. No patriarch faithful was willing to come under the orthodox priests and administrations in force fully occupied parishes. The action of the orthodox faction drew widespread criticism from political leaders, heads of other denominations, and civil society. The Orthodox faction’s perceived overreach tarnished its reputation, even among its own faithful. Those orthodox faithful who counseled against such harsh actions, including reputed priests, were isolated, warned and sidelined. They were ridiculed as Judases and ‘Brutases’.It was as if the hardliners hijacked the church administration, with core membership and key positions reserved for themselves.
Patriarch Faction’s Response
*The Patriarch faction, having lost its legal standing, found itself unable to resist the court-ordered handovers effectively. They resorted to mob power, resisting takeover of parishes and properties but had to give up before the force of police. many a time brute, who were acting on court orders. Nearly 60 parishes and associated properties were forcibly transferred to the orthodox faction so far. The public had to witness forceful removal of men women and children, priests and high priests from churches, like third rate criminals.
* They accused orthodox faction influencing the courts and legal system with bribes and requested the government to enact new laws to overcome the “unjust” rulings of the courts
The Impact on the Faithful and the Public
*These tit-for-tat denials of Christian charity turned both factions into institutions, looking like Talibanized militant groups, more focused on material control than on fulfilling their spiritual mission.
*The ordinary faithful, many of whom held no strong factional allegiance, bore the brunt of this conflict.
*Their ability to worship peacefully, receive sacraments, and participate in Christian community life was severely disrupted.
*Families faced the indignity of being unable to bury their loved ones in their ancestral cemeteries, prompting the government to enact laws allowing burials without interference from Orthodox Church authorities.
*Within the Orthodox faction, respected clergy and laypeople who advocated for peace were ridiculed and marginalized by hardliners.
* General Public, religious and social leaders advised against using force to vacate the faithful from Churches. They condemned denial of rights to bury the dead according to their faith under the supervision of clergy of their choice ( of the same religious faith). Some other Christian denominations offered to open their spaces of worship to the patriarch faithful who were ousted from their churches

Is Peace Possible?
The events related to the century old faction fight, particularly those following the 2017 Judgement, would appear that point of no return has been reached and a permanent peace is not possible. The patriarch faction has, already taken such a position . They want laws to prevent the orthodox faction from taking over more churches and return the Churches already taken over by the orthodox faction after the 2017 Judgement. Orthodox faction wants the Government to help takeover all remaining churches and properties still in the custody of the patriarch faction; They say that all those who obey the 2017 judgement, accept and declare the autocephaly of the Malankara church, and agree to abide by the 1934 constitution can remain in the Church. This amount to , a kind of Forced conversion of faith per the faithful on the patriarch side. It is crystal clear that peace and a joint church is impossible unless both sides give up such extreme stands. If their claim that they are Christians this is the opportune time to demonstrate their Christian spirit of empathy and loving compassion, forgiveness and love. Only then a lasting PEACE IS POSSIBLE.
Compelling Reasons to Pursue the path for peace
The ongoing conflict has caused immense pain and confusion among the vast majority of faithful. Despite the legal battles, ideological disputes, and factional narratives, most Church members share a common desire:
*A Unified Spiritual Experience. Most faithful, regardless of factional affiliation (often determined by birth or marriage), simply want to worship in peace, receive sacraments, and fulfill their spiritual needs.
*They hold respect for clergy, bishops, the Catholicos, and the Patriarch, desiring a Church that reflects Christ’s love and unity.
*Suffering from Division: Families with members in opposing factions face emotional and social strain. Baptisms ,Weddings, funerals, and other sacraments have become sources of tension rather than celebration.
*A confidential and independent survey would likely reveal that over 95% of the faithful prefer peace and unity over continued disputes.
* It is proven beyond any doubts that any kind of court judgement will not by itself, bring peace in the Church, Courts and government only can aid the peace process like a catalyst in a chemical reaction.
Basic ingredients needed for peace
First and foremost mental condition required is a Resolve to Turn Back to God. It should be a peace that Jesus gives which is not the peace that Mortals give. In order. To reach that peace the leadership of both factions should grow in Jesus.
*The solution lies in repentance, humility, and a genuine commitment to move from evil to good, seeking God’s guidance in restoring the Church to its spiritual purpose.
*The Church can only move toward peace if both factions:
1.Acknowledge their own negative contributions to the divisions and commit to introspection and correction
2.Foster empathy for the other side’s perspectives and grievances. Examine what you can do to address their grievance , Before thinking and prescribing what the opposite side should do, it is easier to think what you can do to resolve
3.Focus:The Malankara Church must rediscover its spiritual mission, grounded in Christ’s teachings of love, humility, and reconciliation.

Resolve differences regarding:

1.The position of St, Thomas in the Church
St. Thomas is universally revered as the apostle who established the Malankara Church. Traditionally, Patriarchal Bulls addresses the Malankara Church as the “Church of Mar Thoma”. Accept the fact that vast majority of the faithful honor and respect St. Thomas as the founder of the Church. Their feelings need understanding and recognition. Any past or present action by word or deed that diminishes the importance of St. Thomas need to be withdrawn. St. Thomas and the history of his work in India are the pride of every Christian in the Malankara Church.

2.Throne of St. Thomas: There is no historical proof that St. Thomas established a throne in Malankara. His field of evangelization was “The East” that included the present day Iraq and India. Malankara Church was spiritually led from the beginning by the “Church of the east” headquartered in “the East”, but all the day to day affairs and administration were done locally by Malankara Christian community’s leaders. There is no evidence of any kind to show that the heads of any church, Antiochian, East, or Rome interfered in the temporal affairs of the Malankara Christians before the arrival of the Portuguese in1498. The only Church with which Malankara had relations with was the Church of the East (established by St. Thomas) which was only for spiritual guidance. Relation and oversight the Antioch and its Patriarch had over Malankara was the same as it had with the Church of the East (The catholicos position of the church of east was renamed as Maphriana in the 800s and later abolished in the 1300s, which was again ‘re established and relocated’ to Malankara in 1912). The supreme court has clarified that the use of “ seated oon the throne of St. Thomas” by the catholicose is to be considered “ornamental”. Jesus said to Pilate, who boasted about the powers he had (to crucify Jesus or let him free) that he would not have any power unless it was granted from above ( God). Same way no throne would have any value unless it was gifted from God above. It is time to stop fighting on the throne issue.
3.Spiritual Seniority and headship of the Patriarch
A clear understanding about the position of Patriarch in Malankara Church is a fundamental need for peace
*As seen before, the Church of Antioch had privileges over the Church of the East as decided in the synod of Nicia . This was reaffirmed in in the Constantinople synod (“bishops of the East shall manage the church east alone, the privileges of the church of Antioch mentioned in canons of Nicea being preserved”). If an objective evaluation of available ‘historical, traditional and partisan arguments is done it will be clear that the Church of Antioch is the parent Church and Patriarch is the spiritual head but he did NOT have temporal powers over Malankara until 1886 m which was a necessity at that time. Hereafter, interference in the temporal affairs of Malankara Church by Antioch should be done only if invited by the Malankara Association.
* None of the courts has made a judgement stating that patriarch is not the spiritual head. The supreme court judgement in 1995 has said that using “ seated on the throne of St. Thomas’” by the catholicos is an ornamental declaration. The 1934 constitution state that the Malankara Church is a division of the Syrian orthodox Church whose head is patriarch of Antioch. 2017 judgement states that accepting 1934 constitution cannot be construed as diminishing the spiritual headship of Patriarch. A clear and honest understanding of by Orthodox and Patriarch factions regarding the spiritual headship of Patriarch but his noninterference in the temporal affairs is a basic requirement for establishing peace.
4. Autocephaly Claims
There is no historical evidence supporting claims of autocephaly in the Malankara Church . This claim was raised in the late 1960s 1970s which detonated the split again. While the Church resisted temporal control by the Patriarch, it continued to acknowledge Antioch’s spiritual primacy.
1.Supreme Court Observations: The 2017 judgment stated that the Patriarch’s temporal authority in Malankara had reached a “vanishing point,” affirming the Catholicos’ authority within the framework of the 1934 Constitution. However the court clarified that acceptance of the 1934 Constitution does not negate the Patriarch’s spiritual seniority.
2.Kerala High Court Directive: The Kerala High Court required the Orthodox faction to formally state if it acknowledge the Patriarch’s spiritual headship, and their leadership did so in the affirmative. Apparently this was to retain claims over Church properties, as Otherwise they would have been declared acting in violation of the court’s judgement and their own 1934 constitution. Despite this acknowledgment, actions and talks by Orthodox leadership suggest an agenda to minimize or erase the Patriarch’s historical, spiritual role. This error should be acknowledged and corrected to ensure peace.
Patriarch Hardliner’s Insistence that the Malankara Church has always been an integral part of the Church of Antioch, and should remain under the Patriarch’s direct control is not historically correct. Temporal powers of the church were never under the patriarch until the Mulanthuruthy Sunahados. which was held to free the church and its faith from the reformists. The Malankara Syrian Christian association formed in that synod made the patriarch the patron but Malankara metropolitan had the authority for administration.
* The only acceptable and justifiable position for peace is that the Patriarch is the spiritual head of the Malankara Church and that all the temporal powers rest with the Catholicos cum Malankara Metropolitan duly elected by the members of the Church. This is the canonically, historically, traditionally and legally correct position.
* The most important and extremely critical, necessity for establishing peace is agreement regarding sharing power , position and in electing catholicos, Malankara Metropolitan, Bishops and managing committee members etc. for managing institutions and common properties of the Church and parishes. The Malayalam word for peace “Samadhanam” start with ‘Sama’ which means equality. Administrating the affairs of the Church and assuring a true sense of equality (samthvam) among the members is needed. It is critical that firm and impartial steps be taken prescribing a clean procedure to elect the governing members at various parishes and central administration. A thorough revision and amendment of the church constitution should be done in mutually respectful environment.

*Healing Emotional Wounds
The sad and deplorable incidents after 1970 split especially after the 2017 judgement have drifted the faithful, priests and high priest far apart that many feel that re unification is impossible. and the church should be split into two. Only if the key people truly believe that “ nothing is impossible for God” and turn towards God with firm resolve to practice Godly love, forgiveness, compassion and empathically understanding the opposite side peace will be possible in the Church. Some prayerful suggestions are submitted below:
1) Of late it has become a practice to elect hardliners to Key leadership positions. How smart a candidate is to acquire churches or resist ‘capture’ of church is a major criteria in electing / nominating him for administration positions. It is time to change this. Elect leaders who are practicing true Christianity and leading their personal and family life by honoring Godly values
2. Sitting Key Leaders at all levels should show preparedness to relinquish their position as necessary. The holy church is no more capable to withstand Egos and personal rivalries among leaders (of both factions). Leaders should often prioritize God’s will and Peace over their own selfish interests.
3. Family and personal feuds often masquerade as doctrinal disagreements, but their roots lie in personal animosities. Stop using Jesus’ name to achieve personal goals
4. Prohibit electioneering in connection with elections to positions especially to spiritual leadership positions, Trustees etc. Uphold principles and avoid using (evil) strategies to win election.
5. Appoint independent observers appointed by the government/ court and other observers/ mediators for conducting elections from parish level to the top administration positions for sufficient time, until an environment mutual trust and cooperation evolves.
6. Control Over Properties and transparency: At its core, the conflict revolves around control over the extensive real estate and assets of the Church, which include parishes, seminaries, cemeteries, and other properties. Avoid unaccounted money play. ‘Ana paisa’ account of all income and expenses be maintained and submitted for audit, internal and external and be open to public when demanded
7. Unity; Hard Facts: But the leaders are humans,and humans, are driven by their mortal senses. When reminded that they are Christians, they may nod and sing chorus, but will fall back to their default positions as mortal human beings driven by self-centeredness and ( evil) emotions. How to overcome this problem is complex. Elevating people to spiritual beings can be achieved only with God’s interference. Allowing the two administrations to continue for some time to allow a “cool off” period, may be one way. Allowing the two factions hold administration of parishes and properties they were holding and restoring parish membership as existed on a cut of date (2002?), keeping parishes under management of committee elected by members allowing and welcoming any bishop priest and layman right to worship and pray in any parish church and other similar methods to smoothen relations can be considered. Unifying the two factions should be a joint task Guided by God and spiritually committed high priests , priests and members from both sides. A joint tribunal like set up should be made to look at issues and make binding decisions to resolve issues if, and as and when they arise

MAY GOD GUIDE THE CHURCH. WITH PRAYERS