Today we take up another myth.

Myth: The Patriarch enjoys only spiritual overlordship and has no temporal authority over the Indian wing of the Syriac Church.
Fact:A study of the structure of the Indian wing of the Syriac Orthodox Church will reveal that it is divided into the following for administrative convenience:

a.) Dioceses in Kerala and outside under the supervision of the Maphryan (presently HB Baselios Thomas I).

b.) The Knanaya archdiocese, which is directly administered for the Patriarch by a Knanaya bishop.

c.) The Evangelical Association of the East, which is directly administered for the Patriarch by a bishop.

d.) The Honavar mission, which is directly administered for the Patriarch by a bishop.

e.) The Simhasana Churches, which are also directly administered for the Patriarch by a bishop.

f.) In addition, the Maphryan also has no jurisdiction over the Indian diaspora in the Middle-East and North America, both of which are directly administered by the Patriarch through a bishop.

(Source: 'The Concept of Jurisdiction and Authority in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch' by His Grace Mor Gregorios Johanna Ibrahim, archbishop of Aleppo, available here.

Readers may please note that entries under b-d in the above series are directly under the Patriarch's administration even though the laity membership is composed exclusively of Indians. The bishops who administer these divisions report directly to the Patriarch in Damascus, and not to the Maphryan in India, even though all of them continue to be members of the Indian synod. Theoretically, all these bishops have direct access to the Patriarch, and on occasion, if they desire so, they can undermine the authority of the Maphryan by producing Bulls from the Patriarch. Whether this is how it pans out in actual practice is beyond the comprehension of this author, but anecdotal evidence suggests that during the tenure of the previous Maphryan (HB Baselios Paulose II of blessed memory) his authority was considerably undermined by the inherent flaws in this structure. The Patriarch had even bestowed the title 'Great Metropolitan of the East' on the late HG Abraham Mar Clemis of the Knanaya Sabha, thereby diminishing the stature of the Maphryan further.

Of particular importance is the entry under (d). Contributions made from the sweat and toil of our Jacobite brothers in the Gulf and North America - which are not inconsiderable - directly find their way to Damascus. Most readers know that Syria is a totalitarian dictatorship and its political leadership was passed on five years ago from father to son as though in a monarchy. Sham elections are organised once in a while, and the president is declared elected with a landslide. In the last presidential elections held on July 10, 2000, for instance, Bashar Assad - who became eligible to contest through a constitutional amendment which lowered the minimum age from 40 to 34 (i.e. his age) - was declared elected securing 97% of the total votes polled (source britannica encyclopaedia). Officially, the ruling political dispensation professes the secular Baath ideology, but the country is something of a regional bully (Lebanon is more or less a colony) and is alleged to be not above dabbling in a bit of terrorism on the side. Many believe that a UN Security Council resolution threatening sanctions against Syria is imminent. So if you are a resident of the US, and are a frequent traveller to Syria, you can certainly expect to be under the gaze of the Homeland Security Department.

It's to this place that the funds derived from the sweat and toil of our Jacobite brothers are sent. We do not know whether the Syrian government gets access to a portion of it, and if so, as to what purpose it's being put to use.

Classic Divide And Rule Policy

In many ways, the administrative structure adopted by the Syriac Orthodox Church for its Indian wing mirrors the classic divide and rule imperial policy perfected by the colonial British. At its height, what was known as British India included present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar - in short, a huge entity. A search through the census conducted by the British in 1901, now available in electronic form here, revealed the following astonishing details:

i. The land area of the Indian Empire in 1901 was estimated at 1,766,597 square miles. Out of this, 38.5% or 679,393 square miles were administered by some 560 princely states, whose discredited feudal rulers were the most loyal subjects of the British empire. The remaining area was ruled directly by the British.

ii. Contrast the above with the current land area of the Indian Republic - 1,222,559 square miles. Short by 544038 square miles from the 1901 position. Still, India is now the seventh largest country in the world.

iii. The population of India in 1901 was 294,361,056.

iv. The census estimated that the number of Europeans at that point in India, including British soldiers and civil servants, was a mere 169,677. They had another 89,251 loyalist Eurasians (now known as Anglo Indians) to help them.

Imagine that! A mere 169,677 Britishers controlled this huge landmass of continental proportions and a population 1,700 times as much. How did they do it? By a policy of divide and rule. They allowed the rulers of princely states as well as other feudal leaders in territories directly administered by the British to rule their turf as they wished so long as they paid their dues to the British in time. They kept them happy bestowing meaningless titles, took them on conducted tours to Britain, maintained them in good humour by presenting photo opportunities with the British monarch, and generally looked the other way when they let loose indignities against their own subjects. In return, these princes/feudal leaders were transformed into the most devoted subjects of the British empire, ready to crush even a whiff of dissent against the colonial masters. Additionally, the British studied the ancient fault lines in the social fabric of the country, created provocative situations and set community against community, ethnic group against ethnic group, and caste against caste. In this way, they managed the astonishing feat of ruling this monster of a country with just a handful of people.

The Syriac Orthodox Church too follows a policy of divide and rule to control its Indian wing. In the number of followers, the Indian wing at 12.5 lakh (source CNEWA) is nearly three times the global strength of the Suryoyo wing (5 lakh: source CNEWA). Thanks to the diaspora in the Gulf and North America and the native genius of the Indian people, our Jacobite brothers are truly blessed to raise resources for their church. Yet they are unable to contribute fully because under the convoluted imperial administrative structure they follow, their tithes are flowing straight to Damascus. The Indian Jacobite Church is, therefore, caught short on the resources front. For a long time (until 1990), for instance, they were unable to organise resources to set up a state-of-the-art seminary, and the church suffered for it. They see the Indian Orthodox Church prosper, and without understanding their own structural infirmities that are preventing them from realising their full potential, attribute the IOC's successes to the traditional bugbears of Manorama, Muthoottu, MRF, Aban Group etc.

Some Titles Bestowed By The British On Loyalist Indians:
Sir
Rai Bahadur
Rai Sahib
Order of the British Empire (OBE)
Khan Bahadur
Khan Sahib
Rao Bahadur
Rao Sahib

I am not presenting a list of the titles granted by the Syriac Patriarch because there are many good people among the recipients, and they may feel offended, whereas my opposition is only to the idea and the motives behind it.

Conclusion:
A study of the administrative structure of the Jacobite Church in India leads us to conclude that it's so arranged as to diminish the authority of the Maphryan in the Indian Synod. This structure also allows the Syriac Patriarch to play a role in the temporal affairs of the Indian church.

Next: The truth about the throne of St Thomas