2002 Parumala Association – Facts - Malankara Syriac Voice

2002 Parumala Association – Facts
The most common allegation raised against the Holy Church in the Methran kakshi online
discussion forums is the boycott of 2002 Parumala association. Their contention is that we
boycotted the elections because of fear of losing. This is our humble effort to expose the reality
of the Parumala Association of 2002 and explain the reasons why we had to boycott the same.
We are indebted to Very Rev Kuriakose Cor-episcopa Moolayil, whose articles in various
magazines and journals of that time have guided us in the making of this article.
The main contentions of the Methran Kakshis are :
1. We initially welcomed J. Mulimutt 's appointment but later opposed him
2. We boycotted the elections because we were sure of losing
3. Our concerns against the electoral process were childish
4. We had already decided to boycott the elections and then looked for reasons to justify the
same.
5. Mor Divannasios (HB Mor Baselios Thomas I) was power hungry and so he led the SOC to
boycott the association and create a parallel church.
6. We were not interested in peace and unity.
Our response to the above contentions and the reasons as to why we boycotted the 2002
Parumala Association are given below.,
The honorable Supreme Court of India ordered to hold Malankara association and appointed J.
Mulimutt (retd.,)as the observer on 28th Nov 2001. On 8 th Dec 2001, J. Mulimutt sent notices to
both factions and informed that he will be meeting the representatives of both factions on 11 th
Dec 2001 at Kottayam. In the letter sent to Mor Divannasios (HB Mor Baselios Thomas I), he
informed that all contentions of JSOC will be addressed in the meeting at Kottayam. He also
informed us that our objections to the report of Mathews II dated 7 th Dec 2001 also will be
taken up in the 11th Dec meeting.

But this proposed meeting was postponed to 20 th Dec 2001.
In the letter sent from Bangalore on 10 th Dec 2001 informing about this change of date, J.
Mulimutt asked Mor Divannasios (HB Mor Baselios Thomas I) to send his objections and
suggestions to reach him before 18 th Dec 2001. Accordingly Mor Divannasios (HB Mor
Baselios Thomas I) sent him a letter in four pages raising nine points which were our
contentions.
In between, Mathews II had sent a notice kalpana on 15th Dec 2001 to churches which was also
published in Malayala manorama ( Malayala manorama of 15th Dec 2001, KTM edition, pg 9 ).
The meeting was held at Kottayam on 20th Dec 2001 and representatives of both factions were
present in the meeting.
The first point raised was the usage of St. Thomas throne in Mathews II’s Kalpana and the usage
of Malankara Metropolitan in the same Notice kalpana of 15th Dec. The relevant Supreme
Court order in which Mathews II was asked to call the association by name was shown to the
observer and he accepted our contention.
After this initial problem was solved, the main issue of the actual conduct of the association
meeting was taken up..
At this stage, we have to explain our main contentions and the reasons for the same a bit in
detail for proper understanding...
1. Even before the first meeting took place between the concerned parties in the
presence of the observer on 20th December, the Methran Kakshis had already gone
ahead with the preparations and issuing Notice Kalpanas ( 15th Dec) to Churches and
in newspapers. At this juncture, it is very important to understand that, the Supreme
Court had ruled in its verdict that all elections and the office bearers elected in both
factions held after 1971 are only partial and they are not representative of the whole
church. While this directive of the court was in force, Methran Kakshis went ahead with
making arrangements for the association meeting as per the ' Nadapadi Chattam '
passed unilaterally by them on 1 st June 1989 even before both parties had met. So in
the beginning itself Methran Kakshis were going ahead on their own without taking us
into confidence.
2. The unrealistic dates for the election process. The last date on which we were asked
to report on the membership of each parish based on which the number of

epresentatives were to be decided was 20th Dec 2001 which in itself was unrealistic.
The notice kalpana was issued on 15th Dec, Saturday. Even if the next day all
membership was finalized and sent on Monday the 17th itself, reaching Kottayam from
all the parishes before 20th was unrealistic.
3. Next was the issue of the number of churches to be represented. Definitely every
parish has the right for representation. But we have to consider the issue within the
context of the church feud and the reasons that led to this association meeting. This
association meeting was a culmination of the church case which started in 1975. The
Supreme Court had clearly and unambiguously directed that any further action was to
be taken on the basis of the situation on 1st Jan 1971. So going by the Supreme Court
verdict, it was only natural that the number of churches to be considered for this
association meeting was 1064 churches as in the original suit. The churches built by
both factions post 1971 could always join the association formed in 2002 and that was
the right way to go ahead.
a. The same Supreme Court has also ruled that the Knanaya churches, Simhasana
churches, EAE churches and Honnavar mission churches are out of the purview
of the Malankara Association and under the control of the Patriarch directly. It
plainly means these churches have nothing to do with Malankara association or
Malankara metropolitan. So deducting those churches the remaining number of
churches to which Kalpanas had to be sent were only 913 churches. The Methran
Kakshis had filed a case during this time in Thrissur munsiff court asking for a
stay on the Knanaya association elections. The court rejected the appeal saying
that the 1934 constitution is not applicable to Knanaya diocese until and unless
they decide so. We have mentioned this here just to let you know what the legal
system considered as proper in 2001/2002.
Now, instead of sending Kalpanas to 913 churches Mathews II claimed 1650
churches were to participate in the association.
Let us make a realistic analysis of the situation in Kerala. Even if we ignore the
number of people who have left the church and joined the Pentecostal groups,
there has been no considerable proportionate increase in the membership of the
church. When there is no considerable increase in the membership of the church
how is it that, in 25 years the number of churches increased by 600 Almost 50
%. Is this is realistically possible So something really fishy had happened in
deciding the number of churches by the Methran Kakshis.

Those members who work outside Kerala have their primary membership in
their home parish in Kerala. While they were being represented from their home
parishes they were being again represented from their churches outside Kerala.
There was a duplication of representation or more clearly the same member
wass being represented from two different parishes twice. This was for one
member in one parish. When we multiply this with the no of members in
different parishes, the amount of double representation happening hardly can
be missed.
b. There are a lot of service centers under the main churches in the major cities of
India. They were also included in the list and could send representatives to the
association. Now the members of these service centers are members of the main
church in their town and also of their home parishes in Kerala. In such cases, the
same member was being represented three times from his service center, town
parish and home parish in Kerala. Here the representation was triplicate.
All these created duplicate representation in the association or false
representation. The situation outside India in the Middle East, Europe and US
was also the same as the one explained above.
4. The next issue was the actual voters list and the representation from the churches. In
the light of the above representation issues, we insisted on clearing the contentions
we had regarding the voters list to be prepared before going ahead with the
Association.
We hope that everybody will agree with us that the Voters list is the fundamental factor
of any electoral process.
In the light of the above contentions, there was no way that a correct voters list would
have been prepared if the process initiated by Methran Kakshis was to be followed.
There would have been double and sometimes triple representations which all would
have made the electoral process a big joke.
5. It was not made clear if the managing committee members of both factions would be
members of the new association.

6. It was not made clear who would be creating the tribunal for the receipt of the
complaints and disputes.
7. There was no clear directive as to how representatives should be elected from the
churches which have both factions or is closed down. There was another big confusion
there.
We are leaving it to the judgment of the readers whether the above points raised by JSOC were
out of fear or too idiotic Were they not just lawful concerns on our part Does anyone think
that an election held under the above circumstances would have been free and fair
Was it not proper to address the issues that were raised by us and then go ahead together in
conducting the election rather than imposing their decisions on us and asking us to submit
We were talking about unity in 2002 and not submission.
It was when both, Methran Kakshis and J. Mulimutt refused to address our concerns as
explained above, that we understood the course the electoral process would take and
decided to boycott the same.
If they had given even a minimum consideration to our concerns and still we had boycotted the
association, then Methran Kakshis would have been right in saying that we did not want peace
in 2002. But no effort was made by the Methran Kakshis to take us into confidence. Their
attitude was - we shall decide and you will obey. This attitude has always been the biggest
stumbling block in achieving everlasting peace in the Malankara Church. Unity and peace just
don’t happen that way.
As a result of the above rift what happened on 20th march 2002 at Parumala and Puthencruz
are a part of history now.
We would like to make one more addition to this article. It is on the actual electoral process
after 20th Dec 2001.
We are giving below a few examples to show the “fairness” of the voters list. We shall start first
with the JSOC churches and later we shall give two examples from the Methran Kakshis
themselves.

1. Kottayam Diocese: - Methran Kakshis published a list for Manarkad church with one priest
and two lay members. Now as per the representation clause Manarkad church has to send
more than this.
Manarkad church was represented by one Fr. E K George. The fun is that, he was never a
member of the Manarkad church. The other two people were expelled members of this parish.
Now the funniest part was that the same Fr. E K George was also representing Vadakkan
mannoor St. Thomas Orthodox Church. One person representing from two churches.
2. Angamaly diocese: As per the 2002 list there are 167 churches in Angamaly diocese in the
SOC. Of these, 45 churches had found their place in the Methran Kakshis list. While most of
these Churches can send 1 to 8 representatives these 45 churches had been represented by
one priest and two lay members. The point to note here is that, no elections were held at the
parish level but the representatives were just ' selected ' by Methran Kakshis sitting in
Devalokam. Let us see a few funny examples...
a) Fr. Benny Panthaplakkal is representing two churches - Angamaly St. Marys and Naduvattom
St. Marys.
b) Fr. Eldose representing again two churches Peechanikkad St. George and Peechanikkad St.
Peters
c) Fr. Paulose Varikoli representing again two churches Kothamangalam cheriyapally and
Perumbavoor Bethel Suloko.
And none of these churches held elections. This is what we call ' Murder of democratic values'.
3. Thrissur Diocese: - Here, maybe strengthened by Mannuthy Milithios, all the 34 churches of
JSOC found its place in the list. But when it came to the representatives only people and priests
owing allegiance to Milithios were named in the list. Not elected.
4. Kandanadu Diocese: - Here two lists were created A & B to accommodate Severios and
Athanasios groups. JSOC had 66 churches here. When the lists were published, 17 churches
were represented in both the lists of A & B. 17 churches were duplicated.

Means, one single church could send equal number of representative twice owing allegiance
to different groups. And still they claim that all was well with their Parumala Association
drama.
The fun continues.
5. Kochi Diocese: Here again in the Methran Kakshi list, 23 JSOC churches found their way (
though it was without the knowledge of the respective parishioners ). Of these, four were
churches where both factions were present.
Again needless to say that no elections were held.
So much for the JSOC churches.
Let us see two examples from Methran Kakshis themselves...
1. One Mr. Matt represented the St. Greogorios church of Toronto at Parumala and was also
elected to the managing committee. But the Toronto parishioners went to court and filed a
case that no elections were held in their church and the representation of Mr. Matt was
without the knowledge of the parishioners.
2. North of Kerala Arthat Valiyaopally is the biggest parish church of IOC. Here the Valiyapally
parishioners approached the supreme court and filed a case against the twelve chapels under
the Valiyapally being included in the voters list as separate parish churches which again resulted
in the duplication of representation explained previously..
We have given you the examples above to make the readers understand that this was not a fair
and free electoral process as the Methran Kakshis propagate and want everyone to believe. Just
see the discrepancies in the number of churches, the voters list, etc….
When we boycotted the association we had good reasons to do so. And it was not to split the
church.
Finally, we are giving below a few newspaper references which will show the clear picture of
the process leading to the 2002 association meeting at Parumala.
1. Deepika - 16th Jan 2002, Ekm edition.......... Orthodox faction trying for artificial majority.

2. Mathrubhumi - 23rd Jan 2002, Ktm edition.... Amicable solution seems impossible
3. Mathrubhumi - 29th Jan 2002, Ktm edition... HC rejects metran faction appeal to hand over
manarkad church administration to court nominee.
4. Mangalam - 4th feb 2002, Ktm edition..... Some IOC hurches may not participate
5. Manorama - 18th feb 2002, Ktm edition.... Manarkad church sends vakeel notice against
selection of representatives without the consent of the parish
6. Mathrubhumi - 21st feb 2002, Ktm edition.... SOC to file complaints against election
malpractices.
7. Mathrubhumi - 3rd march 2002, Ktm edition...Metran faction manipulating election process
8. Mathrubhumi - 4th march 2002...A manipuated voters list is published for the association
election
9. Mathrubhumi - 7th March 2002...A forged voters list is published for Angamaly and thrissur
dioceses
10. Mathrubhumi - 8th march 2002.... Two voters list for most churches in Kandanad diocese.
11. Manorama - 12th march 2002... Mor Athanasios os chengannur accepts that in churches
having disputes two voters list have been permitted.
12. Mathrubhumi - 12th march 2002.. Manipulations in the voters list of Kochi diocese also
13. Mathrubhumi - 15th march 2002 ... Last minute efforts for peace failed
14. Mathrubhumi - 18th march 2002.... Arthat church files petition in supreme court against
their factions decision
15. Mathrubhumi - 18th march 2002.... Govt must act impartially
16. The Hindu .....18th march 2002..... Govt urged to hold referendum
17. Mathrubhumi - 13th march 2002.... An analysis of the crisis in the malankara church

18. Mangalam - 22nd march 2202..... 'Kananaya Association' questions the inclusion of two
members in the Managing committee of Methran Kakshi
19. Mathrubhumi - 6th april 02 ..... Split in the malankara church complete.
The concluding arguments of the Methran Kakshis is that, the right thing to do would have been
to attend the association meeting and then if there were complaints to approach the court of
law.
Such a practical and innocent suggestion.
The Methran Kakshis forget that we have come a long way since 1958. They cannot cheat us
always. If we had attended the association meeting it would have been suicidal to us. All the
Methran Kakshi claims which have been accepted by the Supreme Court are based on our
acceptance of them in 1958. They regularly take pleasure in ridiculing us asking ‘what is the
point in opposing now when we had accepted Catholicate, 1934 constituion etc.,. in 1958’.
Compare that situation again with 2002. The electoral process was being pursued with a single
point agenda of somehow electing Mathews II as the Malankara Methran. When this was the
case and if we had become a part of the meeting the decisions of the said meeting would have
been legally binding on us. Later, when there would have been a conflict the the Methran
Kakshis, they would surely say... ' parumala meeting il vayum pothi irunnavanokke ippol vaalu
pokkunnu'. This has happened in 1970's.
Of course we could have questioned it in the court but to what effect This present court cases
started in 1975 and what have we achieved after 35 years
We did the right thing by boycotting the elections. There was no choice left to us.