PQRS1 at 16:15, 8 May 2026

2026-05-08T16:15:58Z

New page

{{Short description|Pillory in Goa, India}}
{{Infobox building
| name = Pelourinho Novo
| image = Hat katro hatkhamba.jpg
| alternate_names = ''Hath Katro Khamb'', [[Goa Inquisition|Inquisition]] Pillar{{efn|alternatively known as the '''Pillar of Inquisition'''}}
| caption = The pillory in 2017
| years_built = 16th-century
| material = [[Basalt]]
| architectural_style = [[Kadamba architecture]]
| location = [[Old Goa]], [[Goa]], India
| coordinates = {{Coord|15|29|57.1|N|73|54|48.6|E|display=inline,title}}
| status = Defunct
| closing_date = Before 1886
| building_type = [[Pillory]]
| owner = Department of Archaeology, Goa
| relocated_date = [[Annexation of Goa|After 1961]]
| classification = Proposed [[List of State Protected Monuments in Goa|State Protected Monument]]
| known_for = [[Hindutva|Pro-Hindu]] folklore
}}

The '''''Pelourinho''''' '''''Novo''''' ({{literal translation|lk=yes|New [[Pillory]]}}), also known as '''''Hath Katro Khamb'''''{{efn|alternatively spelt as '''''Haat Katro Khambo''''' or '''''Haatkatro Khamb'''''.}} ({{literal translation|Hand-Cutting Pillar}}), is a sixteenth-century black [[basalt]] pillory in [[Old Goa]], located in the Indian coastal state of [[Goa]]. It acted as a symbolic [[Civic center|civic marker]] and a focal point for official proceedings, where authorities handled legal matters, issued formal announcements, and enforced penalties, including [[corporal punishment]] such as the [[whipping]] of offenders.

==History==
===Background===
[[File:Map of Velha Goa - Pelourinho Velho.webp|thumb|A 1595 map of [[Cidade de Goa]] by [[Jan Huyghen van Linschoten]], showing the ''pelourinhos'' in the city (top and middle).]]
There is no clear consensus about the pillory's history. It was originally built in the late sixteenth-century, and by 1886, it was in a state of ruins.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2026-04-07 |title=In Goa, new name for old monument ignites a debate over Portugal's colonial legacy |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/in-goa-new-name-for-old-monument-ignites-a-debate-over-portugal-s-colonial-legacy-101775578435303.html |access-date=2026-04-08 |website=[[Hindustan Times]] |language=en|last=de Souza|first=Gerard}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Walker |first=Timothy D. |title=Contesting Sacred Space in the Estado da India: Asserting Cultural Dominance over Religious Sites in Goa |url=https://journals.openedition.org/lerhistoria/8618?lang=es |access-date=2026-04-03 |website=[[OpenEdition Journals]]|date=23 June 2021}}</ref><ref name=":8" /> According to veteran historian [[Percival Noronha]], the pillory existed during the period of the [[Sultanate of Bijapur|Adil Shahi rule in Goa]] and used as a site to [[Hudud|punish criminals by cutting off one of their hands]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=D'Mello |first=Gilbert |date=2008-08-04 |title=Old Goa locals oppose shifting of historic pillar |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/old-goa-locals-oppose-shifting-of-historic-pillar/articleshow/3322529.cms# |access-date=2026-04-03 |work=[[The Times of India]] |issn=0971-8257}}</ref> A common offense was failing to pay debts. Some claim that the monument was used during the [[Goa Inquisition]]; however, these claims have been debunked.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Pereira |first=Svetlana |date=28 June 2016 |title=The pillar that belongs to none |url=https://epaper.navhindtimes.in/PageImages/pdf/2016/06/28/28062016-md-ga-15.pdf |access-date=3 April 2026 |website=[[The Navhind Times]]}}</ref><ref name=":3" />

Svetlana Pereira of ''[[The Navhind Times]]'' writes, the pillory functioned as a focal point for key civic and economic activities. It also acted as a public site where official announcements, including municipal decisions and mayoral election results, were communicated.<ref name=":1" />

===Portuguese period (1510–1961)===
[[Fernão Lopes (soldier)|Fernão Lopes]], a former Portuguese convict forced into service during [[viceroy of Portuguese India]] [[Afonso de Albuquerque]]'s first campaign, later reflected the influence of the pillory in his rogue-style narrative. In the aftermath of the Portuguese triumph over the [[Adil Shahi]] forces at [[Old Goa|Ela]] in February 1510, troops who had demonstrated notable valor were granted women from the defeated ruler's [[harem]] as a form of compensation.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web |last=Carvalho |first=Nirmala |date=2026-04-22 |title=A centuries-old pillar in Goa is causing controversy about colonial history in India |url=https://cruxnow.com/church-in-asia/2026/04/a-centuries-pillar-in-goa-is-causing-controversy-about-colonial-history-in-india/ |access-date=2026-05-08 |website=[[Crux (online newspaper)|Crux]] |language=en}}</ref>

Contemporary records describe these Portuguese soldiers as "''casados''," or married men, a designation that carried [[social stigma]] due to their unions with local women whom prevailing colonial attitudes deemed of lower status. As church authorities increasingly denounced these marriages, officials intervened by separating [[Bijapur]]i women from their partners and redistributing them elsewhere. Rather than accept this separation, a number of ''casados'' including Lopes, left Portuguese-held territory and sought refuge at the Muslim settlement of Banastarim, across the [[Mandovi River]], in order to preserve their family lives.<ref name=":11" />

When Albuquerque reestablished Portuguese dominance in November 1510, Banastarim was brought under his control. Under the negotiated terms of capitulation, Muslim authorities were compelled to surrender the Portuguese renegades who had sought refuge there. These men were subsequently tried for disloyalty and subjected to harsh exemplary punishment. Approximately twenty ''casados'' were publicly displayed on pillories before enduring extensive mutilation, including the amputation of facial features and limbs. Around half died from the ordeal, while the remaining survivors were exiled from Goa after their release.<ref name=":11" />

===Contemporary period (1961–present)===
The pillory deteriorated after [[Annexation of Goa|Goa was annexed by India]] in 1961 and at that time stood roughly 20 metres from where it is today. Its former site, historically known as ''Pelourinho Velho'' or ''Baratilha'', is now identified as Gandhi Circle. It was later acquired by the Athaide family,<ref name=":0" /> who moved it onto their own property as the original area had become overcrowded.<ref name=":1" />

[[File:Pelourinho Novo in 1886.jpg|thumb|A sketch of ''Pelourinho Novo'' in ''A India Portugueza'' (1886) by [[António Lopes Mendes]]]]

In 2008, the Directorate of Transport in [[Goa]] issued a directive to relocate the pillory due to concerns about traffic safety. This proposal was met with resistance from local residents and community figures, including the then [[Rector (ecclesiastical)|rector]] of the [[Basilica of Bom Jesus]], Fr. Savio Barreto, who argued that moving it would affect public sentiment. Instead, they recommended that the state government construct a [[traffic island]] around the structure. In the same year, a proposal was also made to grant the pillory [[List of State Protected Monuments in Goa|protected monument status]].<ref name=":0" />

In 2024, the Department of Archaeology, Goa, submitted a proposal to the state government seeking protected monument status for the pillory. The proposal encountered resistance, largely because the site did not meet the requirement of maintaining a 100-meter [[Buffer Zone#Conservation|buffer zone]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sayed |first=Nida |title=Buffer zone a hurdle for Hath Katro Khamb's 'protected site' bid |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/buffer-zone-a-hurdle-for-hath-katro-khambs-protected-site-bid/amp_articleshow/115945209.cms |access-date=2026-04-08 |work=The Times of India |issn=0971-8257|date=3 December 2024}}</ref>

In February 2026, the Department of Archaeology proposed to the state government that the pillory be granted protected monument status and be renamed with the [[Konkani language|Konkani]] name "Haat Katro Khambo."<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=5 March 2026 |title=Official Gazette |url=https://goaprintingpress.gov.in/downloads/2526/2526-49-SI-OG.pdf |access-date=10 April 2026 |website=[[Government of Goa]]}}</ref> The proposal was formally recorded in March through its publication in the ''Official Gazette'' under the Goa Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1978.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-04-04 |title=Objections raised over monument naming; call for reliance on official records |url=https://www.heraldgoa.in/goa/objections-raised-over-monument-naming-call-for-reliance-on-official-records/470445/ |access-date=2026-04-10 |language=en-US|website=O Heraldo}}</ref>

The move drew significant criticism in April from a group of historians, academics, journalists, and other commentators, including Dale Luis Menezes, Cédric Lobo, Joseph A. Q. Marques, Frazer Andrade, Dr. Luis Dias, [[Amita Kanekar]], [[Maria de Lourdes Bravo da Costa Rodrigues]], and [[Celsa Pinto]].<ref name=":3" />

The group submitted a formal objection to the Department of Archaeology, challenging the proposed renaming. They pointed out that 19th-century historical records identify the structure as "''Pelourinho Novo''" and argued that the new name lacked documentary support.<ref name=":3" /> They also rejected claims associating the pillory with the practice of hand-cutting, stating that such interpretations stem from narratives promoted by certain [[Hindutva|pro-Hindu organizations]] rather than from verifiable historical evidence.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Goan historian challenges new name for Old Goa pillar |url=https://www.thegoan.net/goa-news/goan-historian-challenges-new-name-for-old-goa-pillar/146048.html |access-date=2026-04-10 |website=The Goan |language=en|date=4 April 2026}}</ref>

In the same month, objections were also raised by members of the Save Old Goa Action Committee (SOGAC) and local residents, calling for the name change to be reverted to its original historical name. In their defense, they argued that the pillory bore a [[Boundary marker|stone marker]] identifying the structure as "''Pelourinho Novo''" and emphasized its inclusion among the [[Churches and convents of Goa|UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Old Goa]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-04-17 |title='Pelourinho Novo' vs 'Haath Katro Khambo': Naming sparks dispute |url=https://www.heraldgoa.in/goa/pelourinho-novo-vs-haath-katro-khambo-naming-sparks-dispute/472120/ |access-date=2026-04-18 |language=en-US|website=O Heraldo}}</ref>

[[Indian National Congress|Congress]] legislator [[Carlos Álvares Ferreira]] also commented on the debate, stating that the newly proposed name lacks historical basis. He dismissed assertions that amputations took place at the pillory and expressed concern that history could be misrepresented through unverified anecdotal narratives.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-04-27 |title=MLA Ferreira Seeks NSA Action, Flags ‘Unverified History’ in Old Goa Row |url=https://goemkarponn.com/mla-ferreira-seeks-nsa-action-flags-unverified-history-in-old-goa-row/ |access-date=2026-04-28 |website=Goemkarponn |language=en-US}}</ref>

==Pro-Hindu views==
In 2015, a group of [[Right-wing politics|right-wing]] [[Hindutva|Hindu organizations]] in Goa, operating collectively as the National Hindu Movement (NHM), organized protests in [[Ponda, Goa|Ponda]]. The coalition, comprising groups such as [[Shiv Sena]], [[Hindu Janajagruti Samiti]] (HJS), [[Sanatan Sanstha]], and Ranragini, called for the pillory to be officially recognized as a [[Monuments of National Importance|national monument]]. They claimed that it represented the sacrifices made by [[Goan]] [[freedom fighter]]s in their efforts to end [[Portuguese India|Portuguese rule in Goa]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 January 2015 |title=Demand for historical pillar to be declared national monument |url=https://www.business-standard.com/amp/article/pti-stories/demand-for-historical-pillar-to-be-declared-national-monument-115011100482_1.html |access-date=4 April 2026 |website=[[Press Trust of India]] via [[Business Standard]]}}</ref>

In 2017, groups associated with the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) issued warnings to the [[Government of Goa]] and the state's Directorate of Archives and Archaeology about the pillory. They indicated that protests and agitations could be organized if the pillory was not adequately maintained. According to these groups, the pillory was linked to the period of the [[Goa Inquisition]]. They claimed that it had been a site where [[Goan Hindus|local Hindus]] were punished or killed for resisting [[Christianization of Goa|religious conversion]] under Portuguese rule.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |last=Kamat |first=Prakash |date=2017-06-18 |title=Preserve haatkatro khamb, Hindu groups urge govt. |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/preserve-haatkatro-khamb-hindu-groups-urge-govt/article19099885.ece |access-date=2026-04-05 |work=[[The Hindu]] |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X}}</ref>

A [[spokesperson]] for the organization, Manoj Solanki, stated that references to the pillory had appeared in official records up to 2006, but alleged that efforts had been made to omit such documentation. The groups also proposed an alternative historical interpretation, suggesting that the pillory may predate Portuguese rule and could be linked to the [[Saptakoteshwar Temple]] from the time of the [[Kadambas of Goa|Kadamba dynasty]], which they asserted was later destroyed during Portuguese Goa.<ref name=":2" />

In 2026, [[Subhash Velingkar]], former [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh|RSS]] Goa chief, claimed that the pillory is the sole remaining structure linked to the Goa Inquisition, which he described as involving "demonic acts." He urged the Government of Goa to relocate the pillory to a secure site in [[Old Goa]] so it could be accessible for public display.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2026-04-04 |title=Recognise pillory as only surviving sign of Inquisition: Velingkar |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/recognise-pillory-as-only-surviving-sign-of-inquisition-velingkar/articleshow/130024957.cms |access-date=2026-04-07 |work=The Times of India |issn=0971-8257|last=|first=}}</ref> He asserted that opposition to the proposed renaming of the pillory was motivated by an effort to downplay the historical legacy of the Goa Inquisition.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |title=Opposition to rebranding Goa's Portuguese pillar, alleging Hindu agenda |url=https://www.ucanews.com/amp/opposition-to-rebranding-goas-portuguese-pillar-alleging-hindu-agenda/112865 |access-date=2026-04-19 |website=[[Union of Catholic Asian News]] |language=en|last=D'Souza|first=Crespo|date=17 April 2026}}</ref>

==Analysis==
There are differing opinions regarding the origin of the pillory's history; however, a broad consensus among subject matter experts holds that the ''Pelourinho Novo'' had no connection to the [[Goa Inquisition]].<ref name=":8">{{Cite book |last=Lopes Mendes |first=A. |author-link=António Lopes Mendes |url=http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.292576 |title=A India Portugueza |year=1886|pages=154–156|location=Lisbon, Portugal|language=pt|publisher=[[Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda]]|trans-title=Portuguese India|edition=Volume I}}</ref><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" />

Historian [[Percival Noronha]] argues that the pillory was used in pre-[[Portuguese Goa]], during the rule of the [[Bijapur Sultanate|Adil Shah dynasty]], where criminals' [[Hudud|hands were amputated]].<ref name=":0" /> Journalist Svetlana Pereira also states that this practice occurred, though she provides limited context regarding the specific period and emphasizes that only "one of the hands" were amputated.<ref name=":1" />

Historian [[Prajal Sakhardande]] likewise acknowledged the historical significance of the pillory, noting the presence of an inscription in [[Kannada]].<ref name=":2" /> He further clarified that there is no documented evidence to support claims that acts such as the cutting of hands ever occurred at the site, and rejected assertions by history enthusiast Sanjeev Sardesai that individuals' hands were tied and broken at the site.<ref name=":3" />

A 2021 study by American academic Timothy D. Walker, published in ''[[OpenEdition Journals]]'', explains that [[pillories]] were present throughout the [[Portuguese Empire]] and functioned as symbols of governmental authority. They were commonly introduced as part of the establishment of new Portuguese settlements and were usually positioned in prominent public areas, often near administrative buildings. These sites were associated with legal proceedings, the enforcement of punishments in public view, and the formal communication of official rules and decisions. Walker also notes that [[corporal punishment|physical forms of punishment]] were commonly conducted at these sites.<ref name=":4" />

A 2025 report in ''[[O Heraldo]]'' aligns with Walker's findings.<ref name=":4" /> It notes that, prior to Portuguese Goa, individuals convicted of minor crimes had a hand amputated at the site, a view also associated with Noronha's account of the pillory’s history.<ref name=":0" /> The article further states that this form of punishment is believed to have persisted until the [[Annexation of Goa|end of Portuguese rule in Goa]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |date=2025-01-18 |title=Exploring the Historic Pillory of Old Goa |url=https://www.heraldgoa.in/cafe/exploring-the-historic-pillory-of-old-goa/4411/ |access-date=2026-04-03 |language=en-US|website=[[O Heraldo]]}}</ref>

Academic Rev. (Dr.) Victor Ferrão states that the pillory functioned mainly as an instrument of corporal punishment for relatively minor offenses, such as petty crimes, tax nonpayment, or [[Public-order crime|breaches of public order]]. Those condemned were fastened to iron restraints on the pillory, where they faced public whipping or [[Public humiliation|humiliation]] intended to discourage similar behavior.<ref name=":10" />

Ferrao also indicates that accounts of hand amputation are more likely connected to pre-Portuguese governance in Goa or may derive from oral traditions passed down through generations, rather than from well-substantiated historical records.<ref name=":10">{{Cite web |title=The Misnaming of Old Goa’s Historic Pillar: From Pilourinho Novo to Hath Katro Khambo |url=https://www.jnanamrit.com/2026/04/06/the-misnaming-of-old-goas-historic-pillar-from-pilourinho-novo-to-hath-katro-khambo/ |access-date=2026-04-30 |website=Jnanamrit |language=en-US|date=6 April 2026|last=Ferrão|first=Victor}}</ref> Ferrão was featured in a discussion with ''Goa News Hub'' regarding the pillory’s proposed name change, alongside Chetan Rajhans of the right-wing pro-Hindu organization [[Sanatan Sanstha]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Pelourinho Novo or Hatkatro Khambo? Hub Gajali |url=https://www.jnanamrit.com/2026/04/29/pelourinho-novo-or-hatkatro-khambo-hub-gajali-28-04-2026-gnh/ |access-date=2026-05-01 |website=Goa News Hub via Jnanamrit |language=en-US|date=28 April 2026}}</ref>

Modern historians and researchers including Dale Luis Menezes, Cédric Lobo, and Frazer Andrade<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carvalho |title=Pelourinho Novo: Political misuse of history inflames Goa |url=https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pelourinho-Novo%3A-Political-misuse-of-history-inflames-Goa-65288.html |access-date=2026-04-24 |website=[[AsiaNews]] |language=en|date=21 April 2026|first=Nirmala}}</ref> dismissed assertions that amputations were carried out at the pillory. They also dispute any connection between the structure and the Goa Inquisition, arguing that proposals to rename it appear aimed at reinterpreting the site as a memorial to alleged victims of that period. According to these researchers, the practice of hand amputation was not a recognized form of punishment in [[Goa]], Europe, or under the Portuguese Empire.<ref name=":5" />

Menezes further explains that pillories like ''Pelourinho Novo'' historically served as markers of [[public space]]s and were found across regions from [[Gujarat]] to [[Kerala]].<ref name=":5" /> He expressed concern over the proposed renaming by the Department of Archaeology, stating that it relied on folklore without documented historical evidence, and advocated for preserving the monument's original name.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Folklore v/s history: Controversy over renaming pillar at Old Goa intensifies |url=https://www.thegoan.net/goa-news/folklore-vs-history-controversy-over-renaming-pillar-at-old-goa-intensifies/146841.html |access-date=2026-04-24 |website=The Goan |language=en|date=19 April 2026}}</ref>

Lobo maintains that the association of the pillory with the Goa Inquisition, along with claims of [[Christianization of Goa|Hindu conversions]] and stories of amputations, does not stem from historical records but from online propaganda linked to the [[Hindu Janajagruti Samiti]] (HJS).<ref name=":9" /> In his view, the repeated circulation of these ideas on digital platforms led to their broader acceptance as established facts. He also observes that [[Auto-da-fé|Inquisition courts]] existed in regions such as Spain, Brazil, and Portuguese cities including [[Lisbon]], [[Coimbra]], and [[Évora]], and notes the absence of evidence for hand amputation being practiced in any of these contexts.<ref name=":5" />

==Current status==
As of 2008, the pillory laid within the private property of the Athaide family, who acquired it after the [[annexation of Goa]] in 1961.<ref name=":0" /> By 2026, it has no ownership, and the site on which it stands is designated as a road area. Therefore, it is neither owned by a private individual nor by the [[Government of Goa]].<ref name=":6" />

The pillory was maintained by the Directorate of Archives and Archaeology, Goa, and is now under the Department of Archaeology, Goa.<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |title=Renaming of historical Old Goa pillory sees objections |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/renaming-of-historical-old-goa-pillory-sees-objections/amp_articleshow/130007880.cms |access-date=2026-04-04 |work=The Times of India |issn=0971-8257|last=Sayed|first=Nida|date=3 April 2026}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> As of 2016, it had not yet been claimed by the [[Archaeological Survey of India]] (ASI), nor had it been granted the status of a protected monument. In the same year, there was a discrepancy regarding whether the Directorate of Archives and Archaeology, Goa, had official authority over it, given its status.<ref name=":1" />

As of 2017, the pillory’s platform had been damaged twice due to vehicle collisions, given its central location at a road junction.<ref name=":0" /> Historian [[Prajal Sakhardande]] requested the concerned authorities to preserve the pillory, as it posed a traffic hazard.<ref name=":2" />

==Notes==
{{Notelist}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{cite book |last=Diniz d'Ayalla |first=Frederico |date=1888 |title=Goa Antiga E Moderna |trans-title=Ancient and Modern Goa |language=pt |publisher=Typographia do Jornal do commercio |location= Lisbon, Portugal|isbn= |page=147 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EhwoAAAAYAAJ }}

*{{cite book |last=Osório de Castro |first=Alberto |date=1910 |title=Flores de Coral |trans-title=Coral Flowers |language=pt |publisher=[[Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda]] |location= Dili, Timor-Leste |isbn= |page=180|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6E1AAAAAIAAJ}}

*{{cite book |last=Saldanha |first=Manoel José Gabriel |date=2002 |title=História de Goa: História Politica |trans-title=History of Goa: Political History |language=pt |publisher=[[Asian Educational Services]] |location=New Delhi, India |isbn=81-206-0590-X |pages=223–224|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MOMCtxtILowC}}

==External links==
* [https://www.academia.edu/144525303/HATH_KATRO_KHAMB_FACT_OR_FACTOID_THE_PILLORY_THAT_BELONGS_TO_NONE_by_C%C3%A9dric_Lobo_Medium HATH KATRO KHAMB: FACT OR FACTOID (THE PILLORY THAT BELONGS TO NONE)] by Cédric Lobo, published in [[Academia.edu]] (7 January 2025)

{{authority control}}

[[Category:Pillories]]
[[Category:Portuguese India]]
[[Category:Adil Shahi dynasty]]
[[Category:Buildings and structures in North Goa district]]

Pelourinho Novo - Revision history

PQRS1 at 16:15, 8 May 2026