The opening scene of Pride Pomp and Circumstance in the series 'Hell on Wheels' is remembered for its stark portrayal of a negotiation that was never truly a negotiation. A United States representative informs a tribal chief that the government is offering him a better way of life. When the chief replies that he already likes what he has, the diplomat shifts to the familiar paternalistic argument that his people live in the stone age while the settlers stand at the dawn of an industrial revolution. The chief, unmoved, asks the only questions that matter in the language of sovereignty. Did the government buy this land? Did it trade for it? If neither is true, how can it own it. The reverend present at the council concedes that the chief has a point but the pretence of consultation continues. Eventually the exchange collapses under the weight of its own falsehoods. The emissaries insist that if the tribe joins the reservation system, it will never again have to hunt or roam. The government will take care of its needs. The chief answers with clarity. You are not my country. We need nothing from you. The diplomacy ends there.
This short exchange contains an entire political philosophy. It captures the defence of community autonomy against the encroachment of external power dressed as benevolence. It reveals how resplendent offers, wrapped in the language of progress and protection, often function as instruments of dispossession. It demonstrates how sovereignty is first eroded not by force but by claiming to know what is best for those who never asked for help. In many ways, it mirrors the current political climate in Goa in the run up to the Zilla Panchayat elections this December.
Pattern recognised (subhead)
The episode from 'Hell on Wheels' becomes significant today because the same structural tension can be observed in the political conduct of mainstream parties entering Goan village self governance. The Panchayat has always been conceived as a unit of local administration rooted in the community living within that village. Even the Goa Panchayati Raj Act attempts to preserve this decentralised character by vesting considerable authority in elected members who ideally operate independently of partisan pressures.
Major political parties operating at the national level and others prominent in the state have increasingly begun conducting high visibility campaigns for their candidates at the panchayat level. These campaigns are often shaped by themes such as Goanism, Goemkarponn or other statements of cultural allegiance. Yet these themes, while linguistically local, are politically tied to wider ambitions. These parties, irrespective of the slogans adopted for village constituencies, remain aligned with larger legislative agendas, coalition strategies and electoral compulsions. Thus the offer made to the voter is no longer the promise of community self governance. It becomes the offer of a better way of life tied to the party’s vision, very similar to the offer made to the tribal chief in the episode.
The parallel becomes evident. The assurance that the voter need not worry about the administrative burdens of local governance because the party will take care of everything, including policy, development and resource distribution, mirrors the paternalistic tone of the emissaries in 'Hell on Wheels'. This approach diminishes the self-sufficiency that the panchayat system was meant to protect.
Choice presented
The practical consequences of this shift merit closer examination. When panchayat members enter office through the support of mainstream parties, the probability of populist decision making increases substantially. Populism at the village level rarely produces sustainable development outcomes. It tends to prioritise symbolic gestures over structural reforms.
In this altered environment, community consensus, which is the backbone of local governance, weakens. Members may begin to cater to party interests rather than village interests. Over time, the institutional space intended for self governance becomes crowded with partisan identities, ideological commitments and electoral calculations imported from outside the village. This is reminiscent of how the United States government in the series positioned its offers of support. The offers were dressed in the vocabulary of progress but were designed to secure territorial control. In the same way, political resplendence at the panchayat level risks consolidating party influence while eroding community autonomy.
Warning remembered
The lesson drawn from 'Hell on Wheels' becomes relevant now. The chief’s resistance was not to progress but to the loss of sovereignty. He recognised that dependence on an external authority would eventually eliminate the decision-making power of his people. Goa’s villages stand at a similar threshold. If panchayat elections are gradually transformed into small scale versions of state or national elections, the original purpose of decentralised governance will be compromised. The panchayat will no longer be the voice of the village but an extension of the political party that controls it.
This is not a commentary on any specific party. It is a structural concern applicable to all parties that seek to introduce their organisational machinery into village elections. The Panchayati Raj system was created to prevent precisely this outcome. It was designed so that communities could govern themselves without relying on political intermediaries who may not share their priorities.
The dialogue in 'Hell on Wheels' ends with the chief walking away from an offer that would have compromised the integrity of his people. His final words represent an assertion of community self-reliance. Goa’s electorate, as it enters the panchayat election cycle, may find value in remembering that scene. The strength of a village lies not in the grandeur of promises made to it but in its ability to define its own governance without external dependence. If this principle is upheld, the Panchayati Raj system will continue to reflect its original intent. If not, the consequences may mirror the loss witnessed on that prairie council long ago.
