Panaji: The directorate of archaeology’s notification naming the ‘Pelourinho Novo’ as ‘Hath Katro Khamb’ has drawn mixed reactions. Disputing interpretations linking the pillory at Old Goa to punitive practices, petitioners maintain that historical records consistently refer to the structure as ‘Pelourinho Novo’ (New Pillory), and argued that claims of it being a place where the Portuguese severed the hands of non-believers are based on “hearsay and folklore” rather than documented evidence.A formal objection was submitted by historian Dale Luis Menezes, architect Cedric Lobo, and journalists Joseph Marques and Frazer Andrade to the archaeology department, challenging the historical validity of the name, ‘Hath Katro Khamb’, attributed to the structure.Dr Luis Dias and PhD scholars Amita Kanekar, Maria de Lourdes Bravo Da Costa and Celsa Pinto are also in the process of filing their objections against the notification, issued earlier this year, which proposes to designate the pillory as a protected monument under the Goa, Daman and Diu Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1978.According to the submission, several historical references in 19th century writings and later official records identify the structure as ‘Pelourinho Novo’ .The objection further claims that a pillory is a civic marker historically associated with administrative or municipal authority, often indicating a central or symbolic point within a settlement. It contends that there is no evidence linking the structure to religious persecution or punitive practices as suggested by the currently proposed name.The petitioners have urged the department to reconsider the nomenclature and adopt a historically accurate name before proceeding with the declaration, warning that failure to do so could result in the creation of an inaccurate historical record.Director of the archaeology department, Nilesh Fal Dessai, said all objections and suggestions will be considered. “We have to look at the sentiments of the people and at the same time, at the accurate history surrounding the subject before deciding. Then, it is up to govt,” he said.The issue has also drawn attention from other experts, shedding light on its possible colonial era origins and evolving interpretation.“I read that people were tied to that pole and their hands were broken — not severed, but broken. Such practices may have indicated a structured system of punishment. Pillories are a concept brought in by the Portuguese. They exist in Portugal and elsewhere in Europe as spaces meant for public humiliation. There may have been limited studies about the pillory in Old Goa, but the term, ‘Hath Khatro’, has been used to refer to it since the pre-Liberation era,” history enthusiast Sanjeev Sardesai told TOI.Historian and heritage activist Prajal Sakhardande said, “The term, ‘Hath Katro’, in local parlance translates to ‘hands chopped’, not ‘hands tied or broken’. There may be no historical record that such acts actually took place at the location, but we must go by the etymology of the word since it suggests hands were cut. There is no need to contest the name. It can be called ‘Pelourinho Novo: Hath Katro Khamb’.”
