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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
