• 1 On these mixed unions see Luis Felipe, Thomaz, De Ceuta a Timor, Lisbon: Difel, 1994. C. R. Boxer, (...)

2Albuquerque is widely recognized for his advocacy of mixed marriages between Portuguese men and native women, a pragmatic political policy given the shortage of Portuguese in India at the outset of Portuguese colonial rule there. This policy of mixed unions might have been short-lived, but the scarcity of European women in India meant that such liaisons continued in spite of reservations on the part of ecclesiastics, colonial administrators, or the crown. Eventually, as Ângela Barreto Xavier has demonstrated, by the latter part of the sixteenth century, mixture of blood acquired a stigma that became even more marked in the seventeenth century1. Mestiçagem, therefore, came to be viewed by both secular and religious colonial authorities in India as a threat not only to the physical purity of the Portuguese, but to their moral or spiritual purity, as well. After all, how could the Portuguese claim superiority of any kind over their colonial subjects if it was unclear who was, in fact, Portuguese?

• 2 Glenn J. Ames, «Serving God, Mammon, or Both?: Religious Vis-a-Vis Economic Priorities in the Portu (...)

5Nevertheless, Catholics continually interacted with Hindus, and thus it was inevitable that exchange and the adoption of certain practices would occur. This was true in the case of birth celebrations, for example, which as the last part of this essay will demonstrate, and in spite of attempts to the contrary, assimilated certain so-called «Hindu» elements. Ultimately there was a gap between the will of the crown and colonial administration and the ability to exercise that will, and as a result policies with regard to interactions between Christians and non-Christians were highly inconsistent. As Glenn Ames has argued and which holds true for this case, the crown vacillated between religious and economic priorities in the seventeenth century, revealing a certain level of political pragmatism when necessary. Interestingly, this view conflicts with the tendency to portray the Portuguese colonial endeavor as one driven principally by religious zealotry, with little concern for economic imperatives2.

• 3 Ines G. Zupanov, «Drugs, Health, Bodies and Souls in the Tropics: Medical Experiments in Sixteenth (...)
• 4 See Cristiana Bastos, «Um Luso-Tropicalismo às Avessas: Colonialismo Científico, Aclimação e Pureza (...)
• 5 See, for example, Anthony Pagden, «Identity Formation in Spanish America», in Colonia Identity in t (...)

6This essay also attempts to contribute to a broader Indo-Portuguese
historiography that has emerged in recent years dealing specifically with issues of contamination, mestiçagem, and markers of social and racial difference
in the early modern period. Portuguese perceptions of the tropics and
discourses about decadence and notions of degeneration and contamination in the sixteenth century have been briefly sketched by Ines Zupanov. In addition, Xavier’s work examines the interstices of mestiçagem and religious conversion as well as the changing status of Luso-descendentes in the colonial social order3. In a more modern context, both Ricardo Roque and Cristiana Bastos have also examined similar issues, focusing in great detail on the rich writings of Germano Correia and the multiple ways that colonial racial categories were utilized and manipulated4. These matters, as well as the connections between climate, contamination, and identity, have been addressed at much greater length in other European colonial experiences, but works such as those referred to above are beginning to redress this imbalance in the Portuguese case5.

• 6 See Paul Axelrod and Michelle A. Fuerch, «Flight of the Deities: Hindu Resistance in Portuguese Goa (...)
• 7 On the regulations passed in relation to Hindu marriage during the first quarter of the seventeenth (...)

7As we know, the regulation of Hindu weddings had roots in the sixteenth century, upon the initiation of rigorous anti-Hindu policies in 1540 that included the destruction of temples, the confiscation of temple revenues, and prohibitions against religious rituals and practices such as sati, temple festivals and marriages. The prohibition against marriages forced Hindus living in Portuguese territories to perform wedding ceremonies clandestinely or to go elsewhere, and Hindus usually left Goa and its surrounding islands for the mainland where many temples were re-erected outside of Portuguese control and where Hindus could practice their religious rites freely6. In the first quarter of the seventeenth century this order was reversed and in principle, Hindus were to be allowed to practice marriage within Portuguese territories as long as certain conditions were met. In practice, however, they were often hindered from doing so7.

• 8 BA, 46-XIII-31, 19 January 1678, fols 33-35, Law of Viceroy D. Pedro de Almeida.
• 9 Panduranga Pissurlencar, ed. Assentos Do Conselho Do Estado, 5 vols., Goa: Tipografia Rangel,1953-1 (...)

8Between December 1677 and January 1678, the subject of Hindu marriages was addressed in Goa in response to a petition from «the Hindu people» of the Estado and upon request of Prince Regent Pedro8. A Junta was called by Viceroy D. Pedro de Almeida (1676-1678) to deal with the «manner in which these weddings should be done in our lands». The Junta members were all asked to vote openly on whether Hindu marriages should continue to be allowed within the territories of the Estado, resulting in a seven to one decision to permit them. Only Inquisitor Francisco Delgado e Matos demurred, stating that «it did not appear convenient» that these weddings occur in Portuguese territories because they involved acts of idolatry and «experience had shown» that the Hindus would not give up their principle act of fire sacrifices. Allowing Hindu weddings, according to Matos, was «a great offense to God and a scandal to Christianity»9.

• 10 Ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 280-87. Document 114, 17 December 1677.
• 11 Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 301. Document 117, 12 December 1678. See, for instance, the debates around Hindu (...)

9The seven votes in favor of Hindu marriages were all based on the stipulation that such weddings would take place «behind closed doors without using their rites and ceremonies».All «idolatrous» practices such as «the sacrifice of fire to the devil» were forbidden and the presence of Hindu priests was banned. To ensure that these provisions were enforced, guards were to be selected to watch over the wedding celebrations and prevent the entry of priests or other temple personnel10. Most Junta members argued that allowing Hindus to wed within the Estado was a natural right of vassals of the king, and that those marriages conducted on the mainland included «grave sins which could be impeded with greater facility in our territories». A customary argument in official circles in relation to Hindu marriages was that it was far more appropriate that they be conducted outside of Estado territories in order to prevent the contamination of new converts11. Many Junta members, however, turned that argument on its head, believing to the contrary, that these marriages could be better regulated if they occurred within Portuguese territories. This way, the constant movement of people from Portuguese lands to the mainland during wedding festivities would be less visible to new converts and would not threaten their often fragile conversions.

• 12 Ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 379-81. Document 143, 29 December 1681.

10In spite of the decision by the Junta, the Hindus of Goa protested to the crown in 1679 about the «inconveniences» of the law passed in 1678 because it prevented the presence of priests and dancers, among others. In order to pacify these important vassals, the Prince Regent modified the law in 1681, informing Viceroy Francisco de Távora that Hindus should be permitted their weddings behind closed doors «in the manner that they are used to». The 1678 clause proscribing Hindu rites and the presence of Hindu priests and other religious officials was thereby nullified. The Prince Regent also added that any Christians watching or attending the ceremonies would be punished accordingly12.

• 13 Ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 379-82. Document 143, 29 December 1681.

11Before Távora was able to publish the new law, however, doubts raised by members of the Junta he had convened «opened the door» to a reexamination of the matter. The Viceroy was «informed by people scrupulous and zealous in the service of God and Your Highness» that Hindus used controversial ceremonies of their «perverse sect,» making sacrifices to the idols of their temples which were likened to the veneration of demons. Such offenses to God could certainly not be allowed by «such a Catholic prince,» and so Távora put the matter to a vote, asking the Junta members whether Pedro’s order should be executed or suspended until a new resolution was passed. Eight of the Junta members voted that the weddings should be conducted beyond the gaze of Christians so that new converts did not «pervert the faith with their bad example». There were no objections to Hindu weddings being held within Portuguese territories, but the suggestion was repeatedly made that they be performed on «uninhabited islands» or other outlying areas where they could not cause scandal to Christians. The four men who objected argued that gentile rites that included «sacrifices to the devil» should in no way be tolerated in Portuguese territories13.

• 14 Historical Archives of Goa (HAG) Vol. 52 MR 46, 10 January 1682, fol. 184, Manuel Themudo to Vicero (...)

12Jesuit Manuel Themudo was one of the most vociferous opponents of this «new law,» and tried to convince Viceroy Távora that it was a grave mistake to allow these weddings «in our lands» because they involved «sacrifices of fire...directed to the Demon in their false Gods». The Jesuit argued the he himself had witnessed these objectionable sacrifices during his years in the Kingdom of Kanara and was convinced that if Pedro was «informed of this truth» he would not concede Hindus this right. After all, the Prince Regent’s predecessors had been well-aware of the negative influence of Hindu weddings, and it was for that reason that King Sebastian in 1559, the Governors of Portugal in 1581, and King Philip II in 1620 had all ordered, «that in no way should the viceroys consent that in their territories Hindu ceremonies are done because aside from the scandal that the new Christians might receive from this concession could be the danger that the newly converted revert to their old ways». The Jesuit did not believe that the Portuguese should «do favors to those Hindus» and suggested that «some deserted island» be allotted to them14.

• 15 HAG Vol. 75 MR 66, 23 March 1702, fol. 189, Pedro II to Viceroy Caetano de Melo de Castro.

13Fears about the contaminating effects of Hindu religious practices and of preserving Christianity, particularly among recent converts, reached such heights that at the turn of the eighteenth century, the President of the Inquisition of Goa, Manuel João Vieira, advocated expelling Hindus altogether from Portuguese territories as «very useful for better conserving the purity of the Catholic faith». According to Vieira, Hindus who lived among Catholics and practiced their religious rites, «with no separation whatsoever… were an obstacle and scandal to native Catholics». Because of this contact between Hindus and Catholics, the Inquisitor believed that new converts and even their children and descendents were tempted by the «same abominations of idolatry that they had abandoned». Vieira «recognized the difficulty» in fully expelling all Hindus from Portuguese territories and therefore proposed that a possible remedy would be to give Hindus a separate place to live which would prevent both intimate domestic relations and the reintroduction of «errors and superstitions»15.

• 16 Ibid. HAG Vol. 77 MR 68, 1 March 1704, fol. 71, Pedro II to Viceroy Caetano de Melo de Castro.

14The Archbishop also called into question the loyalty of Hindus who sometimes served as captains in India, particularly in the Provinces of the North, as well as Hindus who served in military capacities in fortresses. Vieira argued that it was reasonable to believe that the very security of the praças was at stake because it had been left in the hands of «gentiles». For Vieira, the Portuguese «should always be very suspicious of the service and loyalty of infidels». Vieira presented these views to Pedro II in January 1701, and because the matter was one of such «gravity,» the King informed Viceroy Caetano de Melo de Castro of the Archbishop’s letters and asked that Melo de Castro provide his own opinion on the issue, taking into consideration the negative ramifications of expelling or persecuting Hindus16.

• 17 Ibid.

15The Viceroy, in turn, advised Pedro II that expelling Hindus would lead to the absolute destruction of the Estado, and would «close the door to commerce». Melo de Castro clearly viewed Hindus, especially Hindu merchants, as key to continued Portuguese survival in India, and even advocated permitting Hindu temples in Portuguese territories in order to «bring the greater part of them to our lands». The King, however, was hesitant to go so far because this would allow Hindus «to foment the errors of this blind idolatry allowing them to do among us what has been denied them since the foundation of that city [Goa]»17.

• 18 HAG Vol. 77 MR 68, 3 March 1704, fol. 102, Pedro II to Viceroy Caetano de Melo de Castro. On Kumbar (...)

16In March 1704, Pedro II informed Melo de Castro that he received yet another complaint from the Hindus of Goa regarding the «violence» that was committed against them in not allowing them to practice their religious rites. The Hindus were perturbed that though Pedro II’s 1681 amendment to the marriage law permitted Hindu priests and bailadeiras, the authorities in Goa continued to prohibit their presence. The King felt that the provision «was a just favor for such old and obedient vassals who had not failed to offer their money to the Estado on all occasions of need, giving considerable quantities for wars». Pedro II therefore again instructed the Viceroy to allow Hindu marriages to take place according to their traditions, and even made another concession to his ‘obedient’ vassals, permitting them to celebrate their weddings publicly on the Jesuit island of Kumbarjua. The Hindus were only allowed that privilege, however, because there were no Christians on the island who might be influenced by close proximity to their old religious practices18.

• 19 HAG Vol. 79 MR 71, 22 September 1705, fol. 202, Pedro II to Viceroy Caetano de Melo de Castro. See (...)

17The ministers of the Inquisition in Goa expressed their doubts about the King’s provision, and were particularly concerned about Hindu priests attending weddings. Pedro, however, maintained his position, arguing that the priests were necessary «for the validity of their matrimonies,» but more importantly, it was critical to grant the promised liberties to Hindus so they would remain in Portuguese territories; if they were to leave, the business of the Estado would come to a standstill. Pedro’s successor, João V would continue to deal with the Hindu marriage question during his reign, because though the revision allowing weddings with the presence of both priests and bailadeiras was upheld, the religious authorities in Goa continued to thwart its execution19.

• 20 Distinguishing between elements of Hinduism as «religious» or «social» has a long genealogy. As Mos (...)
• 21 Roberto de Nobili is perhaps the most well-known Jesuit who differentiated between distinct religio (...)

18Much of the debate regarding Hindu marriages was whether they should be allowed in open spaces or behind closed doors. Forcing Hindus to marry privately in their homes or within their parishes was a method of reducing the visibility of their rituals and ceremonies and the resulting contamination of new converts that was believed to occur. In addition, allowing Hindu marriages behind closed doors but without the presence of any religious officials, rites or ceremonies could be seen as an attempt to strip the marriages of much of their religious significance20. The problem of whether the presence of priests or bailadeiras was an indicator of social status or prestige or served a religious function was similar to debates about whether the Brahman sacred thread had a religious character or was merely a social marker21. Arguing that Hindu weddings were a natural right further removed the religious dimension of this ritual and in a certain sense secularized it, providing a way, however artificial, for Portuguese authorities to cope with the continued presence of idolatrous practices in Catholic spaces.

• 22 Rosa Maria Perez, «The Rhetoric of Empire: Gender Representations in Portuguese India», Portuguese (...)

19As we have seen, part of the debate around Hindu weddings hinged on the presence of not only priests, who were pivotal for the very validity of the ceremony, but also on bailadeiras, who were also involved in wedding rituals. The Portuguese term «bailadeira» refers to the Hindu temple dancer, or, as she came to be known in British Indian territories, devadasi, literally a ‘maidservant of god,’ who was symbolically married to god and intimately tied to Hindu temple rituals and domestic rituals of the wealthy. The devadasi had a unique social status given that she never married and in theory, had no sociological origin, or caste. Rosa Maria Pérez argues that difficulties in cultural translation led to misconceptions of the role of the bailadeira among the Portuguese: «The overlap between devadasi and bailadeira risks blurring the meaning of the Indian devadasi. In fact, with the passage of time there was a polarization between the ritual and the public dancer, with the latter often conceived as a prostitute….». The figure of the bailadeira was for the Portuguese, therefore, perhaps one of the greatest symbols of Indian sensuality and female depravity. The dancers were frequented by men of all social backgrounds, and were often invited or even ‘kept’ by wealthy Portuguese men22. The Portuguese perception of the bailadeira as the embodiment of the sexuality of the Orient made her a threat to Catholicism, leading to the creation of legal measures to control her presence in Portuguese territories.

• 23 The first attempt by Portuguese authorities to regulate bailadeiras in India was in 1598, under Vic (...)
• 24 Ibid.: p. 86. Perez, «The Rhetoric of Empire: Gender Representations in Portuguese India», p. 132.

20The presence of bailadeiras in Portuguese territories was systematically addressed at the end of the reign of Pedro II and was a matter that would be pursued under his son, João V, in the first half of the eighteenth century23. The Archbishop of India, D. Agostinho de Anunciação, wrote to Pedro II in 1698 that «The Hindu bailadeiras of the lands of Your Majesty are cruel Fates (Parcas) in the lives of your vassals, the total ruin of their money, and such that the Mughal King does not allow them in his territories.» Anunciação encouraged the Crown to reinforce the nominal legislation against bailadeiras, and suggested that at the very least they should be forced to attend church on Sundays and Holy Days. By invoking the Mughals, the Archbishop attempted to demonstrate that even Muslims were aware of the ‘diabolical’ nature of bailadeiras and were already one step ahead of the Portuguese in banning them24.

• 25 BA, 46-XIII-13, 6 March 1700, fols. 90-90v, Pedro II to Viceroy António Luís Gonçalves da Camara Co (...)

21After the matter was deliberated in the Overseas Council in Lisbon, the King ordered Viceroy António Luís Gonçalves da Camara Coutinho (1697-1701) in early 1700 to issue a royal decree prohibiting «absolutely the entrance of these Hindus, who come from the lands of Sambhaji and from the Mughals to Goa.» Dances held privately in homes, however, could continue as long as they were not «public or scandalous.» In relation to the Archbishop’s suggestion that the bailadeiras be forced to «hear the words of the Gospel and the Christian doctrine on Sundays and Holy Days,» the King took a more pragmatic stance. Pedro II believed that those who «receive our religion» should do so voluntarily, and that forcing conversion could bring with it «prejudicial consequences» and «irreparable damage to the Estado.» The most «suave» method for the conversion of bailadeiras was to send zealous missionaries to preach to them «because in this manner their reduction would be easier, and much more secure, without the apprehension of having forced them to embrace the light of truth against their will25.»

• 26 Boxer, «Fidalgos Portugueses e Bailadeiras Indianas», p. 86. HAG Vol. 73 MR 64, 12 October 1700, fo (...)

22Viceroy Coutinho, in the meantime, had already been approached by the Archbishop in Goa regarding this matter and was in full agreement with Anunciação on the negative influence of the dancers. He passed a temporary proviso in 1699 against bailadeiras, but with the Crown approval that later arrived, was able to enforce a more rigid policy. In October 1700, Coutinho passed a law banishing bailadeiras from Goa, its adjacent islands, and Bardes and Salcete due to the «repeated offenses to God» that occurred from their mere presence in Portuguese territories. These women, according to the Viceroy, led «disordered lives» and caused «irreparable damage…to Catholics with their vices.» Along with the damage to Christian souls and the common good, bailadeiras were also accused of destroying the health and prosperity of Portuguese vassals and soldiers. Thus, after the law went into effect, any bailadeiras found in Portuguese territories were subject to the death penalty26.

• 27 Ibid.
• 28 HAG Vol. 75 MR 66, 18 March 1702, fol. 110, Pedro II to Viceroy Caetano de Melo de Castro.

23While Pedro II had conceded that dances could continue privately in homes, Coutinho’s law, contrary to what Pedro mandated, prohibited the inhabitants of Portuguese territories, regardless of their «quality, state, or condition,» from admitting bailadeiras into their homes or properties. The punishment for those who violated this injunction depended on the social status of the offender which varied for fidalgos, «naturaes da terra,» and Hindus27. Though Coutinho’s legislation was severe, targeting not only bailadeiras, but also those who frequented them, Pedro II confirmed the law in 1702 in order to prevent further «offense to the consciences» of his vassals28.

• 29 Boxer, «Fidalgos Portugueses e Bailadeiras Indianas», p. 88, pp. 96-97.

24Collusion among colonial authorities in such matters was not always forthcoming, however, and in the first decade of the eighteenth century, Archbishop Anunciação complained of tolerance demonstrated towards bailadeiras and accused Viceroy Caetano de Melo de Castro (1702-1707) of protecting them. Much to Anunciação’s dismay, several powerful Hindu residents of Bardes received permission to celebrate a festival which included the presence of bailadeiras. Though the Archbishop believed the Viceroy had a hand in allowing bailadeiras at the festival, it was in fact the Inquisition that had granted the request. The Archbishop went on to allege that Portuguese officials often attended dances, forcing the crown to order an investigation of the matter. The following Viceroy and even several leading clergy members notified Lisbon that the Archbishop had been overzealous in his accusations, and that there was no evidence to corroborate his version of events or to warrant the excommunications the Archbishop meted out against the accused29.

• 30 HAG Vol. 73 MR 64, 12 October 1700, fols. 98-98v, Viceroy Antonio Luis Gonçalves Câmara Coutinho.

25For both colonial officials and the clergy, the bailadeira was a contaminating presence that needed to be controlled in order to prevent the spread of her many «vices» and the consequent corruption of Catholicism30. It is unclear why authorities chose this moment to more rigorously regulate the movement of bailadeiras, such legislation being a throwback to the days of intolerant Portuguese religious policies of the sixteenth century. To some extent, the success of these repressive measures was linked to the personalities of men like Archbishop Anunciação who seemed to take a particular interest in this matter and was able to convince Viceroy Coutinho of its importance. Further legislation against bailadeiras was enacted during the reign of João V, notably in 1729, 1730, and 1734.

• 31 HAG Vol. 77 MR 68, 3 March 1704, fol. 102, Pedro II to Viceroy Caetano de Melo de Castro.

26In the case of bailadeiras, a pressing problem for the crown and colonial authorities was where they should be allowed to operate. To minimize their visibility, they were initially granted permission to dance in private homes where they could not cause «public scandal»31. The ability to monitor the movement of bailadeiras into and out of Portuguese territories was somewhat tenuous, however, and so laws were also enacted that subjected inhabitants of Portuguese territories to punishment if they allowed the dancers into their homes or properties. Permitting bailadeiras even in closed spaces, however, was perceived as problematic because her very presence was so highly corrupting. Thus, the Estado as a whole became a proscribed space during this period and the attempted removal of the bailadeira entirely was viewed as one of the only ways to counter her negative influence.

• 32 Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino (AHU) Documentos avulsos relativos à Índia (DAI) Box 55, 21 December (...)

27In spite of Portuguese attempts to regulate the movement of non-Christians and limit cultural contact, the religious contamination that was so feared could not always be prevented. An example of the manner in which cultural practices or rituals might be adopted or exchanged was brought to crown attention in 1679. The Secretary of the Estado, Luis Gonçalves Cota, wrote to Lisbon accusing the inhabitants of Goa of «imitating gentility» in the celebration of baptisms, and expressing shock that the viceroys and governors of India had not previously informed the King of this «great abuse». According to Cota, upon the birth of a child, Hindus celebrated with eight days of parties and feasts and, «This bad example was so powerful, that it caught on among the Portuguese, in such a form, that there is not rich or poor who does not do the same vigil with such excess that they are destroyed and indebted because they spend money that they do not have». During the natal festivities, the child’s parents invited guests to their home where they were fed «three times in the day» and entertained with music and dances «day and night». Particularly troublesome to the Secretary was the gambling that took place, causing many to suffer great losses of money and property32.

• 33 Ibid.

28Cota confronted many fidalgos about the great «destruction» that arose from these vigils who responded that though they were aware of the harm, they were hesitant to end this custom «because no one wanted to be the first in doing away with it» for fear of being perceived as miserly. According to Cota, the fidalgos with whom he spoke also blamed their wives, who because of their vanity and emulation «obligated their husbands to commit these excesses». The Secretary implored Pedro II to enforce through law that «the Portuguese as well as the native Canarin Christians discontinue these vigils» in order to preserve the honor and reputation of the houses of the King’s vassals and to prevent the lavish spending and debts that these occasions involved. A less excessive way to celebrate baptisms, in Cota’s opinion, was to simply invite relatives and friends only on the day of the occasion, «offering them at this time some sweets out of courtesy, without any other expenses». Cota even proposed possible punishments for transgressions once a law prohibiting such celebrations was passed. The Portuguese who failed to comply, he believed, should be forced to surrender their mercês and no longer be eligible for crown service. Native Christians who continued to celebrate baptisms in a manner resembling Hindus should, on the first offense, be fined 100 xerafins, and for a second offense, be imprisoned and exiled for two years to China or Mombasa, and «with these punishments Your Highness would extinguish this abuse that vice introduced with such harm to your vassals»33.

• 34 HAG Vol. 52 MR 46a, 23 March 1681, fol. 127, Pedro II to Viceroy Francisco de Távora. AHU DAI Box 5 (...)
• 35 AHU DAI Box 58, 23 November 1682, Document 34, Consulta of the Overseas Council. Royal decree of 1 (...)

29The Overseas Council believed that the Archbishop of India should be involved in any decision regarding this matter, and Pedro II ordered that a possible remedy be proposed by the Council of State in Goa34. The Council of State believed it would be «easy to remedy these disorders» by simply prohibiting them. The implementation of a law and corresponding punishments, the councilors believed, would be enough to deter the inhabitants of Goa from continuing with this practice. A law to this effect was passed by the Viceroy in December of 1681 and an alvará confirming the law was issued by Pedro II in February of 168335. It is unclear to what degree this royal decree actually impeded the practice of such birth celebrations, but given the constant flouting of royal law in India and the difficulties of regulating such cultural practices, it is quite probable that such festivities continued beyond the gaze of colonial officials.

• 36 On Portuguese «religious imperialism» see Thomaz, De Ceuta a Timor, pp. 249-52.

31The imitation of Hindu practices by the Portuguese was a product of the cultural exchange that was inevitable in Goa and other Portuguese territories where Hindus and Christians lived side by side. Indo-Portuguese society had a hybrid nature which manifested itself in this case in the Portuguese adoption of native cultural practices. However, such cultural interaction was not without problems because of what it meant for Portuguese Catholic superiority. The Portuguese maintained their position as colonizers not necessarily on racial grounds, but on religious ones, as well. If Portuguese colonists were incorporating Hindu practices into Catholicism, Portuguese religious superiority over non-Christian populations could very well be jeopardized36.

• 37 See G. V. Scammell, «The Pillars of Empire: Indigenous Assistance and the Survival of the ‘Estado d (...)

32By the late seventeenth century, in the aftermath of Portuguese territorial losses throughout the Estado, the crown was forced into a balancing act between promoting religious and social policies and creating the conditions for recovery and stabilization. In spite of the desire to more rigorously regulate Hindu practices within Estado territories, it was also recognized that the Portuguese were highly dependent on native non-Christians, particularly merchants, who were in many respects viewed as the key to further prosperity in India37. Efforts to accommodate native merchant communities within Portuguese territories reveal pragmatism on the part of the crown, and, more importantly, the power of such communities and their evolving position within the Estado. Because of that privileged position, especially in the period under study here, the non-Christian Portuguese vassals that were targets of such rigorous religious and political policies had room to negotiate and maneuver within the colonial system. The religious rhetoric that dominated Portuguese imperial ideology often proved to be just that, and was not necessarily indicative of the true political dynamics in India, revealing a persistent gap between an administrative ideal and how the colonial administration in India actually worked in practice.

• 38 Patrícia Ferraz de Matos, «Oximórons do Império: as Buscas da Perfeição Ao Serviço da Nação» (pape (...)

33The mixed marriage policy of Albuquerque in the sixteenth century had many unintended and wide-ranging consequences. Particularly notable is the fact that policies implemented over four centuries ago continue to have implications in a modern context. Lusotropicalists, for instance, have invoked Albuquerque’s policy as an example of a lack of racial barriers in Portuguese colonialism and to argue for the ease with which the Portuguese as colonists mingled with native populations. In addition, according to Patrícia Ferraz de Matos, Albuquerque’s ideas were considered precursors to policies that were put into practice in Portuguese colonial territories in Africa in the twentieth century38.