They petioned to be raised to the status of patriarchate, the were raised to major archepsicopate which the Syro-malankas seem to equate to catholicate, which given the realtionship of the Jacobite Malankars to Antioch makes sense. If the Orthodox complain to Rome or the Archbishop himself perhaps he will refrain form using catholicos.
Yes there should only be one patriarch in a see.
Thank your for this explanation, and yes I agree that ideally there should be one Patriarch per see.
As for the Indian Church my understanding is that they answered to the Assyrian Patriarch and used his rite and received their bishops from him. They welcomed the Portuguese as fellow Christians and seemed to be unaware of any schism. Of course the Portuguese responded by forcibly Latinizing them. In response a sizable portion but not the majority, left the Catholic Church and petioned the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch to take them under his omophor which he did but required them to accept the West Syrian Rite. While this is going on the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch attempted to assert his authority over the Syro-Malabar Church and sent them a bishop, but this bishop left the Catholic Church and joined the Assyrians and today there is still a small Assyrian Malabar Church. Then in the 1920's five of the bishops of the Jacobite Malankar Church invetigated union with Rome with 2 actually doing so in 1930 resulting in the Syro-Malankar Catholic Church.
It seems that we have a different understanding of the facts and their interpretation. Again, I stand to be corrected by any of my Indian Orthodox brothers here. My understanding is that the Apostle St. Thomas established Christianity in Malankara in AD 52. Of course this was Christian Orthodoxy. This was an indigenous Indian Church. These folks were under the Catholicos of the East (I believe he was in Perisa). Part of the Church became Nestorian, but there was always an Orthodox presence in India from the start. They used an East Syrian rite.
Later, a group of Syrian Christians (Knanaites) arrived from from Urhoy (Edessa) in AD 345. The Church in Malankara (Kerala) thereon adopted the rites & liturgies of the Syrian Church of Antioch and became a part of that ancient Patriarchal See. Thus the early Christian converts (St.Thomas Christians) along with the new Christian settlers (Knanaites), came to be called 'the Syrian Christians'. The Church in Malankara continued to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch, and his subordinate in the East, the Catholicos/Maphriyono, until the arrival of more Assyrian (Nestorian) bishops in 1490. Later with the coming of Portuguese in the 16th century, the Syrian Christians of Malankara came under the influence of Latin Catholics, but when they tried to forcibly introduce their teachings, the Malankara Syrian Christians revolted and finally re-organized once again under the guidance of the delegate of the Holy See of Antioch, thereby retaining the Orthodox faith. In light of this, I do not think it is fair to say that the Indian Church "left the Catholic Church". Perhaps Paul, Reji, Phil, or someone else who knows better could correct me if I am wrong.