Interesting. Is one particular See seen as more ancient, authoritative, or central than another?
Not really. There are some arguments for Alexandria or Antioch, based on their place as prominent sees in early Christianity and related arguments, but the ordering of the patriarchs in the liturgy shows that even those churches whose partisans sometimes claim that don't themselves behave as though they are more authoritative or whatever. For instance, it is required by agreement with those churches that we mention the Syriac Orthodox patriarch and the Eritrean patriarch (the real one, Abune Antonios, not the government puppet) in every liturgy, whereas the others
may be mentioned as appropriate (say, if we have Ethiopians or Armenians worshiping with us). If it were a matter of antiquity or associated authority, surely we would mention the Ethiopian patriarch before the Eritrean, as the Eritrean Church has only been autocephalous for a very short time. But it is not like that.
There is a recognition, of course, that as a matter of historical fact in the temporal procession of events, Alexandria is the 'mother church' of both the East African Orthodox Tewahedo churches (seeing as how Axum received her first bishops from Alexandria during the time of HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic), and hence they may be appealed to in times of trouble for those churches. The repressive and frankly evil Eritrean government sent some lackeys to Alexandria in the time of HH Pope Shenouda III to get his blessing for the puppet patriarch they had set up after they illegally (uncanonically) deposed HH Abune Antonios, but were turned away after being told we would in no way be blessing or recognizing that. While their request was insane, the fact that they requested it of Alexandria was sensible. But that doesn't make Alexandria 'first' in some ordering or whatever (see post #6 on the first page). We are not really like the Chalcedonian churches in this way. (Sorry, Coptic people. The Egyptian Church is still awesome, but let's not overstep the boundaries of the ancient canons received at Nicaea et al.)
I also had no idea that the Malankara Orthodox had been excommunicated by Syriac Orthodoxy. Really?
It's a bit of a strange issue, because how do you excommunicate an autocephalous group that by its very nature will not recognize your decision? It's a bit like the RC-EO schism of 1054, if you think about it: the Roman legates placed the bull of excommunication upon the altar, which made the schism 'offical' I guess, but it has always been the EO contention as far as I know that to do so in the first place was not lawful, as it was not within Rome's power in the first place to unilaterally excommunicate half of the Christian world. Similarly, from what I have been able to gather, the Syriac Orthodox (i.e., those loyal to the Patriarch of Antioch/not autocephalous, called in India 'Jacobites', even as that term began as an insult) do not recognize what the Malankara Orthodox Syrians have done (
see here), while the Malankara Orthodox Syrians, who apparently have the government on their side, do not recognize the right of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate to interfere in their affairs (
see here), as they have their own local bishop to whom they are loyal before Antioch (the Jacobite Orthodox too have their own bishop, who heads the local Holy Synod in India but is also under the authority of Antioch and its Holy Synod, as explained in the first link).
So it's a pretty big mess, but as the second link (which is clearly slanted towards the Malankara Orthodox Syrian/autocephalous church's view, in line with the government's decision, which unfortunately does not end the schism as is written there; schisms cannot be ended by legal/state fiat) indicates, it is also a rather
new schism, given how recently there was agreement between the parties, even to the point of coming together to elect one bishop to shepherd them both. So we who recognize both (as the Coptic Orthodox Church quite awkwardly does, from all indications) can only pray for an end to this Indian schism. We have hope in the recent example of the end of the schism between the canonical Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the expatriate "Synod in Resistance", which objected to the elevation of HH Abune Paulos as patriarch for various reasons (sort of parallel to the EO ROCOR situation, which has likewise been resolved by the grace of God). That schism was admittedly newer, beginning only in 1991, but it lasted for
27 years before being healed. So such things are possible, by God. Lord have mercy.