St.Thomas

St.Thomas

Friday, 16 August 2013

PALAMATTOM OR PAKALOMATTOM ?




It is very interesting to read the story about Archadiyokons of Malankara. The word Archdiyokon is a syriacised Greek word 'Archon' .So I suggest that we should use Moopan instead the Greek import Archadiokon of 15th century. It is also noted that the word Moopan is associated with Dravidian Tharakootangal. Some argue that this position is called Jathikku Karthavyan without knowing the etymological origin of the words called ‘Jath’ & ‘kartha’. These words came to Malankara only after 8th century when Malai Nattu Tamil undergo Sanskritisation at large scale.

Coming to the topic let us seek the information about the first known Archadiyokon(Malakara Moopan).We have no information about any Archadiyokon earlier than Ghevarghese Moopan .The information we get about Ghevarghese Moopan is limited. Niranam Grandhavari makes a passive reference about him. Though people claim that he is from Pakalomattom family but there is no convincible evidence. This seems to be a claim put forward by some vested interest in later period. Niranam Grandhavari gives information about a Moopan called” Malanara”. Though the name is unfamiliar the period coincide with Ghevarghese moopan. It is also noted that there is no information available about this Moopan except some passive reference in Niranam Grandhavari.

But interestingly there is another document gives light into this period. “””A padiyola document written in palm leaves which is now in the possession of Pothanikat family at Kothamangalam mentions an Archdeacon in the early years of Sixteenth Century. The document says that in the year 1509, Archdeacon Ittikuriath effected a compromise between two parties contending for the ownerships of two Churches at Kothamangalam. Archdeacon Ittikuriath seems to be the George Pakalomattam mentioned earlier.”””

The pallies mentioned in this document seems to be Kothamangalam Marthamariyam Valiapalli and Marthoma cheria Palli . That means the said “Ittikurian” was Malankara Nazrani Moopan during this period. How are we going to solve this issue. Niranam Granthavari talk about “Malanara” and the document in possession with Pothanikkattu family talk about Moopan ‘Ittikuriath’.It is also noted that the Niranam Grandhavari also talk about Ghevarghese Moopan in a passive way. Some Portuguese documents talk about Archdeacon George in their documents. Now how are we going to solve this confusion. To understand the situation we need to read “Kadamattath Achanmar” portion of Niranam Grandhavari. It clearly states that the portion containing details about the Moopans destroyed by termites

However it gives information about the moopans from Malanara. This is a valued information and more authentic than many of the Portuguese documents. It is also noted that the said Grandhavari speak about Moopan Ghevarghese .It is possible that the said Malanara and Ghevarghese are one or the same person. The “Malanara’ may be some syriac word like “Maronitha”.What ever it may be the same Grandhavari talk about both names indicate that the same person. Then how are we going to solve ‘Ittikuriath” moopan? It is not easy to solve this problem. Since Niranam Granthavari states only the date on which he died give us another option that Ittikuriath may be someone else who reigned before or after him. This is possible because the Niranam Grandhavari talk about another Ittikuriath who died on Kollam 815 Meenam 5(1640).It may be possible that the date mentioned by the Pothanikkattu document may entered wrongly. That is  Ghevarghese moopan and Malanara are the same person.

Another interesting thing is that  no document mention about his family and all we have got is the wild imagination created by partisan authors in later period! But Niranam Grandhavari states that the Malanara belongs to Palamattom family .At the same time it refers passively about the Ghevarghese moopan . It is logical to conclude that these two names belong to the same Moopan from Palamattom family.

Yohannan Moopan(1570-1593)

Next Moopan we come across is Yohannan (Niranam Grandhavari) who died on Kollam 768 Meenam 30(1593).But Katholic sources created another Archdeacon Jacob in between without any records. So far no records have been produced in support of this Archdeacon Jacob.NSC (Nasrani.net) states it is purely based on tradition! God knows where this tradition comes from? This seems to be a creation of Katholics to give credibility to Rome!

Ghevarghese moopan(1593-1604)
He was Malankara Moopan during the troubled days of De Amperitana Synodo. He put up valiant resistance to Roman forces. Many records are available about this Moopan and his activities. No records reveal his family name as Pakalomatton while Niranam Grandhavari clearly mentioned that he was from Palamattom Family (Niranam Grandhavari page.127).But Pakalomattom family propaganda along with Katholic interests propagated that he belongs to Pakalomattom family. But it is interesting to note that there is no single evidence to show that he belongs to Pakalomattom family of Kuravilangadu!
It is the stupidity and subservient attitude of Katholics named him “George of the cross” to give credibility to their argument.

Ittikuriath Moopan(1604-1640)
Niranam Grandhavari states that he died on Kollam 815 Meenam 5. It is also possible that this Ittikuriath Moopan solved the dispute between the pallies of Kothamangalam. It is also to be noted that there was a dispute between Marthamariam Valiyapally and Marthoma Cheriyapally existed during this period. The manuscript with Pothanikkattu family clearly states about this. The wrong recording of the date may be considered as a mistake.

He was the last Moopan ruled Malankara Nazranies and Romo-syrians together. After this Malankara Nazranies were ruled by Palamattom Thoma and Romo-Syrians were ruled by Parambil ThomaKurien Arkadiyokon. This Parambil Thoma Kurien was appointed by Stephen  Britto(History of Christianity in India. Vol.2 By Joseph thekkedath)

Katholic historians made a blunder by thinking the said Ghevarghese Moopan died in 1640.Niranam Grandhavari and other documents like Pothanikkattu Manuscripts clearly give us the details of Moopan Ittikuriath. This mistake was deliberately committed by Romo-Syrian historians in order to create a link between Parambil Chandi and Ghevarghese Moopan. That way they intended to give credibility to the enthronement of Parambil chandy as a substitution. But Niranam Grandhavari spoiled the whole manipulation. This mistake has been copied by some Malankara Nazrani historians like Z.M.Paret. It is possible that Z.M Paret might not have seen Niranam Grandhavari before writing this as reported by P.V.Mathew.

Palamattom Thoma Moopan.

Niranam Grandavari states that he was from Palamattom Family. Paremmakkil Thomman Kathanar’s Varthamana Pusthakam states that Thoma Moopan was from Palamattom Family (varthamana Pusthakam Bhagam 2)

Mavelikkara Padiyola states”Palamattathu Tharavattil kazhinja melpattakkarude vasthuvakakalum seminariyil varuthi””.It is  noted that the property of Palamattom(Kadamattom) melpattakkar (24 title deeds) was also included while settling the case with Anglican Missionaries regarding Seminary and other properties.(The Malabar Syrians and Church missionary society by P. Cherian –appendix R.Page 402)

But the Romo-syrians were ruled by Parmbil Thoma appointed by Stephen Britto. Plz note that there is a tug of war going on between Palliveetil(kalliveetil) family and so called Pakalomattom family of Kuravilangadu about the family of parambil Thumi!!!

That is why I stated that Paranbil Chandi is the relative of Parambil Thoma, not Palamattom Thoma of malankara nazranies. This Palamattom Thoma was the Moopan Of Malankara Nazranies while Parambil Thommi was a duplicate created by Rome.

Now the picture is clear. Malankara nazranies ruled by Palamattom Moopans and have nothing to do with Pakalomattom story of Kuravilangadu. This story is created by vested interest to elevate absurd family called Pakalomattom in later period. The translators of Niranam Grandhavari are also taken for a ride with this propaganda. These story writers have no references or manuscripts to prove their stories except their wild imaginations.

Malankara Nazrani moopans lineage is continuous and clear with family name Palamattom of Kadamattom. But the Romo-Syrian lineage is built on changing names or adopting fictitious characters like Jacob, Kunnel Mathai etc. They conveniently forget the last Moopan “Ittikuriath” who ruled Malankara Nazranies and Romo-Syrians in order to create continuity in their lineage. The policy of creating duplicate Archdeacon was practiced by Rome when ever required like in the case of Kunnel Mathai. Read it from a Katholic Historian.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=chkD52PhJZUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA132#v=onepage&q&f=false

It was Rome directed and played the major role against Malankara Nazranies. The role of Romo –Syrians were just like slaves. They obeyed their Latin masters to destroy Malankara Nazranies. All Malankara Moopans tried to resist this colonial power and protected their mother church. But the   Romo-Syrians enjoyed money and facility provided by Rome against their help in destroying Malankara Nazranies. Now this Romo-Syrians is trying to re- write their history  through manipulations and fake documents.

Now those who need the story of deplorable manipulations and family story writers in search of greatness plz read.

They think history is a manipulative science! The struggle put up by each Malankara Nazrani  can not be used to elevate such  families. It is hilarious to see Pakalomattom added all successful families of Malankara to its list. This is nothing but propaganda created during the early 19th century to elevate certain families. It is amusing to read Palliveetil historians claiming greatness by explaining the manipulation by Pakalomattom. They do not know that history has its own ways to reveal the truth!








4 comments:

  1. This is incorrect.... having no credentials .... better not to publish such hooked up stories....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Koshy kunju,

      What are the credentials in support of Pakalomattom other than usual stories? Can you Plz post here? When you say this is incorrect then you have the moral responsibility to explain it.

      Thanks

      Delete
  2. //But Katholic sources created another Archdeacon Jacob in between without any records.// It is not a creation. We have records of it. Kathanar Jacob was appointed as Archdeacon by Nestorian Bishop Mar Simon (he was in Malankara from 1576 to about 1580), who was a rival Bishop of Mar Abraham, and the Churches of Vadakkancoor obeyed him. So there were two Archdeacons ruling during the period (dates not known exactly) from 1584 to 1593. They are Jacob and Yohannan. Yohannan was Archdeacon from 1570 to 1593, under Mar Joseph and Mar Abraham. George of the Cross (Geevarghese Sleeva) was Archdeacon from 1593 to 1640, under Mar Abraham and Bishop Francis Roz. May be he was also called as Ittikuriathu. From AD 1640 also, there was only one Archdeacon appointed by Bishop Britto. The Malankara Church was of one body and soul until 1653. If there was a rival Archdeacon, from 1640, then we should have had some record of it. So what we can conclude is that the word 'Palamattom' used in some places in the Niranam Granthavari actually stands for "Pakalomattom" only. What we can conclude is that Pakalomattom is pronounced in a loosid way as Palamattom by some authors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Johny Kuriakose,

      History should be written based on evidences note ones church allegiances. Plz read the article and ref.books and links.

      Kathanar Jacob was an assistant to Shemayon the Asserian layman who acted as a Bishop for money .He Was a Vicar General of this Shemayon. Malankara Moopan position is not a Vicar General position. Plz understand the history and heritage behind this position. Malankara Moopan must be elected by Malankara nazranies.He require “Paliam” from the ruling king not from any Naaduvazhies friendship.. These are prime requirements.

      As I stated many Roman prelates created duplicates to Arkadiyokon to subjugate Malankara nazranies. So these duplicates are not Malankara Moopans or have any right to his chair. Read the story of Kunnel Mathai-link is given in the article.

      The statement like “Under Mar Abraham and Joseph” probably a wrong word because Malankara nazranies were visited by many prelates from different churches with diametrically opposite philosophy and teachings. This is because Malankara Nazranies respected every one without their theological outlook. This has been wrongly noted as ‘Under” or “Subjugation” etc. Later in history you may see it sliding towards subjugation due to the colonial environment. It is quite interesting to notice that Malankara nazranies has different practices other than these churches and Malankara Moopan was the sole custodian of this heritage. Later in colonial world people developed stories to brand Malankara nazranies with respective churches .There is no truth in it.


      Plz do not call Malankara Nazrani Moopans such words like sleeva,cross which shows the subservient mentality of a third world citizens . We have great Judeo-Aramaic- Indian names and be proud of it.

      Geevarghese Moopan ruled 1593-1604 and Ittikuriathu moopan ruled 1604-1640.Your assumption with respect to Gheevarghese Moopan and Ittikuriathu Moopan are one is absurd because it just goes against the naming of persons. And it cannot be true because Niranam Grandhavari specifically identify these two Moopans separately. It is Katholik historians manipulation to give credibility to their wretched origin.
      Malankara church was one body before and after 1653. That is the splinter group which separated is not Malankara Church rather a new church created by Latin money and Portuguese power on the foundation of lesser breeds. Foundation of Katholic church was started much before. Malankara Nazranies were against any kind of Portuguese hegemony in church matters. But many church historians wrongly identify the situation existed during 1599-1653 as Roman face of Malankara Church. It was some kind of forced subjugation under Portuguese rule. This can not be termed as Roman church or Malankara nazranies accepted Roman Pope’s hegemony . It was such a political situation Malankara nazranies were brought to by colonial forces . Many dialogues , representations or letters can be termed as diplomatic way of dealing the situation. These things happen in any civilized society, which can not be interpreted to give credibility to a church that was created by money and colonial forces. The very fabric of Katholic church in India especially SMC looks absurd in front of historical truth.

      Thanks.

      Delete