Rudyard
Kipling’s Kim easily falls into the category of colonial texts, which
tried to portray the East as an Orientalized Orient. When Kim
was published in 1901, the British Empire was still the most powerful empire in
the world. The Indian subcontinent was one of the most important parts of the
empire, which thousands of "Anglo-Indians," like Kipling himself,
called home. As we go through Kim, we find that Kipling, consciously or unconsciously acts as an imperialist agent. Imperialism was not just the
practice of the British Empire's acts of colonization of other lands and
people; imperialism was a philosophy that assumed the superiority of British
civilization and therefore the moral responsibility to bring their enlightened
ways to the "uncivilized" people of the world. This attitude was
taken especially towards nonwhite, non-Christian cultures in India, Asia,
Australia, and Africa.
In
his “The pleasure of Imperialism” Edward Said says that Kim is “a master
work of imperialism…a rich and absolutely fascinating, but nevertheless
profoundly embarrassing novel.” He re-reads Kim from the post-colonial
perspective and says that many of the observations of Indian life presented in
Kim as fact are derogatory stereotypes, derived from orientalists' beliefs.
For example, Edward Said writes in his introduction to Kim:
Sihks are characterized as having a special 'love of money'; Hurree Babu
equates being a Bengali with being fearful; when he hides the packet taken from
the foreign agents.
These derogatory ethnic stereotypes are sharply contrasted with Kipling's
portrayals of the British and British culture as more advanced. For example,
when Lurgan Sahib attempts to hypnotize Kim, Kim recites the multiplication
tables he learned at English school to resist—sharply symbolizing Kipling's
belief in the advancement of British law over the superstitious ways of the
Asians. Such contrasts throughout Kim serve to support and justify the rule of
the "more capable" British over the Indian people.
Moreover,
according to Edward Said the portrayal of Kim as an orphaned quite a jungal
boy, sensitive and friendly is basically an image of Indian people. Culturally
he was making them inferior. In his view Indians were good natured, sensitive,
friendly but were jungali and uncultured. He conceives Indian society devoid of
elements hostile to the perpetuation of British rule, for it was on the
basis of this presumptive India that orientalists sought to build a permanent
rule. The Kim (the protagonist of his picturesque novel KIM) is a major
contribution to this Orientalized India of the Imagination. For example, “Kim
would lie like oriental” or, bit later, ” all hours of the twenty-four are
alike to orientals”, or, when Kim pays for train ticket with lama’s money he
keeps one anna per ruppe for himself, which, Kipling says, is “the immemorial
commission of India” later still Kipling refers to “the huckster instinct of
the east” …..Kim’s ability to sleep as the trains roar is an instance of “the
oriental’s indifference to mere noise”.
Kipling
also develops between "native" and "Sahib" conflicts with
the unavoidable fact that the British are the governing class, and the Indians
are the governed. Kipling, however, presents the imperialist presence in India
as unquestionably positive. This is done most effectively through the main plot
of the novel — the endeavors of Indian and British spies to protect the
northern border of British India from the encroachment of Russia, thus
protecting the imperial interests of the British Empire. It is especially
significant that Indian spies are shown protecting British interests. In this
way, Kipling constructs an India in which the native population supports the
British Empire and thus presents Britain's imperialist presence as a positive
good.
The
way Kipling assigns Kim the protagonist and Babu Hurree Chander oppositional
positions, for example, is also crucial to the power relations within which the
narrative operates. The relationship between the colonizers and the natives was
indeed a complex one, because there was no tidy transfer of power between the
two parties. There are connections between the portrayal of Kim and the Babu
but it becomes Kipling’s challenge to assign these two characters distinct
roles in his political narrative.
Kipling’s
portrayal of Babu Hurree Chander Mookerjee, a native employee in the British
administration, is a literary device used by Kipling to depict imperial
authority. Indeed for Kipling, who believed that it was India’s own destiny to
be ruled by England, it was imperative to stress the superiority of the white
man, whose colonial mission was to rule the dark and ‘inferior’ races. He does
this by locating the educated Hurree Babu in a position that is subordinate to
Kim.
In terms of the social hierarchy enforced by colonial order, therefore, Kim
occupies the privileged position by belonging to the ‘rulers’ whilst the Babu
is his insignificant ‘other’. Despite this notable fact, both characters are,
undeniably, products of a colonial upbringing in a colonized society. Thus, Kim
develops as a superior in his role of authority, whilst Babu Hurree Chander is
his excluded opposite. In other words, the Babu is Kim’s anti-self, to whom
Rudyard Kipling assigns a negative value in relation to Kim. In fact the
relationship between the coloniser and the colonized is a tense one, because of
the intensity of the British colonial period. This is Kipling’s major dilemma in
the novel and a problem that he attempts to overcome. The characters are merely
there to highlight how the British Empire affected those at grassroots level,
the people most affected by colonial authority. This is also why we see so many
male relationships forged throughout the novel. Colonies were essentially run
by men and imperialism was driven from a predominantly male perspective.
It is
with this social and political context in mind that exposes Kipling’s
imperialist ideology as being nothing more than a narrative strategy, to
represent Kim’s authority over the native inhabitants of the colony. However,
Kipling was arguably an imperialist, and Kim embodies attitudes towards British
rule in India, which these days are wholly unacceptable and unpalatable.
Kipling believed it was right and proper for Britain to ‘own’ India and rule
its people, and so the possibility that this position might indeed be
questionable never seems to have crossed Kipling’s mind. However, at the time
that Kipling was writing, there was considerable ferment of revolt amongst
Indians against British rule but Kipling appears to dismiss this at points in
the novel when he could have acknowledged it. This is particularly apparent in
Chapter Three when he has an old soldier comment on the Great Mutiny of 1857,
dismissing it as mere “madness”:
In
terms of explaining colonization and imperialism, therefore, Kim is the ideal
embodiment of the conflicting Indian and English worlds. Interestingly, it
appears that all of the events of the Great Victorian Empire are inbred in
Kim’s own character. As the British Empire sought to discover and entrench its
imperial authority in India, so too does Kim seek to find a place in the
country in which he was born. Thus, Kim faces an ongoing struggle to create a
new identity for himself. “Who is Kim?” “What is Kim?” are two questions that
Kim asks himself as the novel progresses. For example on page 331 of Chapter
15, Kim poses exactly these questions from “his soul”:
‘I am
Kim. I am Kim. And what is Kim?” His soul repeated it again and again.’
As in
the words of Edward Said, “we have been shown two entirely different worlds
existing side by side, with neither really understanding the other, and we have
watched the oscillation of Kim, as he passes to and fro between them.” As such,
Kipling renders a vision of India where intellectual, moral and political
boundaries are less than equal. Indeed, if Kipling believed, as he well argued,
that East and West can never really meet in the Indian colony, then in Kim he
makes sure they do not.
Kipling’s
emperialism becomes more evident if we compare him with another Victorian
novelist Conrad. Unlike Conrad, Kipling did not offer any negative assessment
of the imperial project. On the contrary, for him it represented high
adventure. It was Europe's moral duty to 'enlighten' the non-white
world. Kipling believed in racial difference, that is, in European
superiority and for him British rule in India was a solid fact, beyond any
challenge.
Thus,
the Great Empire had a profound effect on Rudyard Kipling’s literary
creativity, especially in the creation of his characters and the distinctive
lives that they lead. As Said points out Kipling's Kim embodies the absolute
divisions between white and non white that existed in India and elsewhere at a
time when the dominantly white Christian countries of Europe controlled
approximately 85 percent of the world's surface.