In Goa, new name for old monument ignites a debate over Portugal’s colonial legacy

The solitary pillar of black basalt stands at a busy intersection near the Basilica of Bom Jesus, now in the literal shadow of a concrete flyover in the old city of Goa

A recent Goa government notification seeking to protect 15 ancient monuments in the state has run into a wall of protest over the naming of a 16th-century pillory in Old Goa. Historians have objected to the state using the unofficial Konkani name Hat Katro Khambo (hand-cutting pillar) in the gazette instead of Pelourinho Novo, or New Pillory, alleging that the Department of Archaeology was institutionalising a “misleading narrative”.

Historian Dale Luis Menezes said all available archives and evidence point to the fact that the pillar at Old Goa was a structure that marked a public area and such structures were built from Gujarat to Kerala (Photo courtesy)

The solitary pillar of black basalt stands at a busy intersection near the Basilica of Bom Jesus, now in the literal shadow of a concrete flyover in the old city of Goa. The structure, resting on a weathered circular pedestal, bears a stone plaque identifying it as the Pelourinho Novo.

But it was the name, Hat Katro Khambo, that figured in the March 5 notification by the Department of Archaeology, that listed the 15 sites that required protection as it notified the public of “its intention to declare the said ancient monuments/archaeological sites and remains to be protected monuments/protected area.”

“There is no historical proof that merits the above mentioned nomenclature. On the contrary, all available archives and evidence point to the fact that the pillar at Old Goa was a structure that marked a public area and such structures were built from Gujarat to Kerala,” said historian Dale Luis Menezes in a letter to the government on the issue.

“It is unclear, therefore, the basis on which the department has notified the abovementioned name or nomenclature for a monument that was always known as the Pelourinho Novo”.

“The department has to explain its choice of the name,” he told HT.

Nilesh Fal Dessai, director of the Archaeology department, said the department would examine the feedback received from people at the end of two months and submit its recommendations to the government.

“This is the process. Once the period for submitting objections is over, the department will submit a detailed report to the government along with its own comments after conducting a thorough study. Objections have been received from both sides,” Fal Dessai said, underlining that his department has received representations from “both sides.”

The Hindu Jagriti Samiti in Goa, a right-wing Hindu group, has been referring to the pillory as Hat Katro Khambo in an effort to underscore what it describes as the “darkest and most dreaded chapter in the history of colonial Goa”.

“These pillories served as the devices for publicly punishing the offenders of the law who, on being tied to it, were whipped. At times, it was used to disjoint the hands by twisting the cords so tightly that the victim used to lose the upper limbs permanently,” the Samiti said on its website.

Researcher Cedric Lobo brushed aside the claim. “Structures like this Pelourinho can be found in various Portuguese towns and villages. Similarly, numerous former Portuguese colonies in the East Indies were marked by Pelourinhos. Pelourinhos in the city of Goa (Old Goa) were first depicted in the late 16th-century map by Dutch traveler Jan Huygen van Linschoten and the early 17th-century map of the city of Goa by Manuel Godinho de Erédia,” he said.

Historians said the new name was an attempt to link the pillory to the Goa Inquisition, to rewrite its original purpose and convert it into a monument for the victims of the inquisition.

“The Goa Inquisition spanned from 1560 to 1820, yet there are no known primary sources – archival or otherwise or contemporary secondary sources– that link this pillar to either the Inquisition itself or to the Hindu resistance against conversion,” Lobo said adding that the “false and misleading narrative” appears to have first emerged through “certain vested interests” who later propagated it over the Internet.

“It is also evident from the fact that next to none documented accounts exist supporting this narrative of hand cutting but has nonetheless been institutionalised, repeatedly spread and widely accepted to be the truth over the internet, he added.

The Inquisition or Inquisição (in Portuguese) a term meaning “to investigate” or “to inquire”, was a ecclesiastical tribunal set up to primarily investigate cases of heresy amongst the neo-converts and New Christians (those of Jewish descent), operating under its own regimento (set of rules) and thereby sought to enforce Catholic orthodox doctrine amongst its subjects.

“The falsification of the pillory’s names which isn’t based on any archival evidence or information to be found and a responsible government body like the department ought to rely on substantiated facts and historiography,” he added.

“Surely, we can all agree that evils and injustices must be condemned — that colonialism’s and imperialism’s associated atrocities, draconian laws, and oppressive policies deserve unequivocal condemnation. The Inquisition in Goa and its subjects were subject to harsh punishments, prison sentences and acts, but these condemnations must never come at the cost of historical misinterpretation or the fabrication of facts. Truth, no matter how complex or uncomfortable, must remain the foundation of any honest reckoning with the past,” Lobo added.

Menezes said the question was not about the protected status of the monument but a question of why the department of archaeology was unquestioningly accepting the erroneous narrative.

Cutting off hands was not a punishment that was used either in Goa or back in Europe or by the Portuguese in colonies and as such, the name was inaccurate on multiple levels, the historians said.

“Inquisition tribunals were also established in regions of Spain, Brazil, Portugal (Lisbon, Coimbra and Evora), yet there is no evidence that hand-cutting was ever practiced, even with the presence of pillories in these areas,” Lobo added.

Pillories instead, were likely used for other forms of public punishment like whipping for criminals or slaves or for public official proclamations.