The Syro-Malabar church is deeply inflicted by the conflict of polarities by the rule of the present Major Archbishop who incidentally is the first elected major archbishop of the church. We did have two former major archbishops’ tenures which were quiet peaceful and elegant, because of the two personalities nominated by the Vatican. Even during their time polar opposites existed without creating any trouble. Any living community will have tensions of conservative and progressive tendencies. But in this church, beyond these normal life conflicts, there are deep rooted differences mainly expressed as regional interests. Behind the regional tensions there are factors which are outside of the regional. The two-pronged conflict is also rooted in history. One group is highly conscious of its identity as a church and its ancient roots in the Chaldean heritage. They are deeply rooted in the soil and have similar tendencies exhibited by the Hindutva forces in the country. They take pride in their Brahminical genealogy, something that may sound mythological. They would claim that St. Thomas had baptised some Brahmins. They are inventors of a church identity that has made them dethrone the crucifix from their altars and put the Pahlavi cross as the precious relic of their ancestry and heritage. Is it not the Manichaean cross a counter witness? They take pride in the past, are tuned to the past and are disposed to restoring it. They are ritually addicted and so pompously show off the faith in public, but are not very keen on the issue of ideals and morals. They are mostly rural and agrarian. They have become ideological, deeply entrenched in identity consciousness.

On the other hand, the other group is progressive, not turned to the past, but looking to the future. They do not take pride in an upper caste Hindu past and are more Buddhist in many of their approaches. The Syro-Malabar church not only has both Hindu vestiges and Buddhist traditions. They words Palli, appan, amma, yogam, the old dress habit of Christian women, they all denote a Buddhist heritage. This group mocks at the caste system and leans more to a sense of community living. They are more open to the future and progressive changes in the church, which are requirements of today’s urban life and the global village. But this attitude also has a tendency to become utopian.

The conflict reached a state where it has paralysed and blinded the Syro-Malabar community. We know that it may be the ideology we hold on to that causes us to react as we do. We cannot extricate ourselves from that ideological circle, but we are also not entirely conditioned by our place in it. A great part of our culture is nourished by projective ideas which are much more than expressions, even concealed expressions, of the times in which they were set forth. Unfortunately, the Syro-Malabar Synod has become partisan and even violently dominating. The very fact that the Major Archbishop celebrated mass in the Synodal way in St Mary’s Basilica under police security inside and outside the church is a clear case in point. The conflict is made dialectical in the Hegelian sense of war. The Synod has become dualistic, if not Manichaean. There has been a total refusal of any dialogue. It is a scandal that has greatly eroded the credibility of the church and its leadership. Will the leadership rise up to the occasion and stop its extremely dangerous game of arrogance and vindictiveness?

There is no formula one can suggest other than the criterion of appropriateness, which must admit that unity and not uniformity is the need of the hour; 2+2 =4 is not 5, no party nor authority can make it 5. This criterion is rather difficult to apply, but it may be the only alternative. The judgment of what is appropriate is the way to solve this conundrum. It should be a concrete judgment of good taste, an ability to appreciate what is befitting in a given situation. Instead of a pseudo-Hegelian claim to have a total view, the question is one of practical wisdom; we have the security of judgment, because we must also appreciate what can be done in a situation. We cannot get out of the circle of ideology and utopia, but the right judgment of appropriateness may help us to understand how the circle can become a spiral. The pallbearers of the tradition of Hindutva conveniently forget, Buddhism and the great Magadha heritage; they also seem to be oblivious of the church’s Malabarian roots and the modern interpretations of the Christian faith. The leadership has betrayed and buried the memory of past glories. Contrary to a religion of austerity and legalism, we must preach a religion of pure love and imagination. The poverty of religion and the religion of poverty are the same.