2002 Parumala Association – Facts - Malankara Syriac Voice

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.