AS A BACKGROUND IN RUDYARD KIPLING’S KIM
Dr. Emre Say (Dokuz Eylül Universität, Izmir – Türkei)
Email: realbetissevilla@gmail.com
Summary:
This article discusses the representation of imperial ideology as a backdrop in Rudyard Kipling’s novel Kim. In this respect, it explores the accentuation of imperial surroundings as illustrated in the implications of characterization against a prevalently political setting with a particular focus on the protagonist Kim around whom the action unfolds and Teshoo Lama who is depicted as an absolute antipode to the ‘earthly’ strife restlessly transpiring around him.
For Kipling the artist, colonialism is . . . always more important
as a metaphor than as an abstract or even than as a practical
idea. One critic has recently written that for Kipling the British
Empire ‚was really a macrocosm, or a huge wall against which
the shadows of private emotions, personal actions, might be
enormously thrown. The conflicts (he) portrayed were … stresses
between man and his environment, spaciously and sometimes
violently expressed, which lay near the roots of all romantic art.
(The Good Kipling, 125-126)
As can conveniently be inferred from Elliot L. Gilbert’s argument stated above, in the case of Kim, Kipling treats British Imperialism – both in theoretical and topographical sense – as a framework by means of which he unreservedly paints a resplendent world of vivid characters outlined and distinguished by diverse dispositional traits, dissimilar temperaments, different backgrounds, occasionally clashing expectations, and last but not the least unlike „races“ accompanied by varying faiths or religions as can well be observed in Kim’s depiction as a central orphaned figure of Irish descent embodying an evident amalgamation of both Eastern and Western mind in his striving for emancipation throughout the novel like a chirping hawk exuberantly fluttering his wings to lunge upwards and unconstrainedly glide in the smooth, silken azure of the Indian skies; Teshoo Lama’s approvable portrayal as an affable, though steadfast, Buddhist Abstinenzler on no account tempted to make a concession to the loosening of uprightness or divergence from the path of ultimate truth into the vicious, imposturous Wheel of Things by wholeheartedly pursuing the river of virtue emanating a soothing crystal-blue glimmer and swaddled affectionately by „a Way and a Law“ on either bank; Mahbub Ali’s characterization as a staunch Muslim appointed as a secret agent of the Indian Secret Service and apparently assuming an amiable and partly protective attitude toward Kim; Reverend Bennett’s representation as a specimen of conservative Christian clergy splotched by a spiteful racist tendency inherently lurking in the colonizer’s mind and partially shared by Father Victor; Colonel Creighton’s unfavourable portrayal as a twisted, duplicitous, insensitive pioneer of British Imperial Ideology with „no feeling for Kim“, Hurree Babu’s depiction as a Bengali agent marked by an opportunistic trait and nonchalant, reserved attitude towards Kim – as is the case for Creighton – besides serving as a reminder of discrimination at „racial, social, even ‚departmental‘ “ levels; Lurgan Sahib’s disposition underscored by dull pragmatism indifferent to „the beauty or meaning of things“ on account of his greedy obsession with „secrecy and power“ which inevitably precludes him from regarding human nature as a unique existence and prompts him to reckon „human personality as essentially an instrument of power“; the Woman of Shamlegh’s representation as a self-assertive, arguably dominant female character seemingly seducing Kim towards the end of the novel; and last but not the least the Kulu Woman’s appraisal as an affectionate, forbearing personality healing Kim’s physical and spiritual weakness engendered by the arduous journey as well as the turmoil of the dangerous scuffle with Russians on the Himalayas and thus refreshing his soul.
In the novel British Imperial Ideology manifests itself through the representation of the Great Game as a tension-elevating background and action-prompting propulsion within the mostly linear plot outline. The Great Game was a term coined by the British rather than Russians to define the strategic contention and antagonism between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for the sake of obtaining dominance in Central Asia. The Great Game is approxiamately construed to be covering the period since the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 till the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. The invention of the term is most commonly ascribed to Arthur Connoly, who was appointed as an intelligence officer in the British East India Company’s Sixth Bengal Light Cavalry.
To cast a glance at the emergence of the conflict between Britain and Russia, at the beginning of the 19th century British India and the bordering zone of the Russian Empire was insulated from each other through a vast extension of territory stretching out for about 2000 miles. Most of this massive area including the unexplored Turkic cities of Bukhara, Khiva, Merv, Kokand, Tashkent and functioning as a barrier zone between these two great empires was not mapped out. Since the southward territorial expansion of the Russian Empire inauspiciously displayed a tendency to pose a threat to affront the acceleratingly consolidating British authority prevalent in the conquered lands of India, these two mighty empires were engaged in an astute, intriguing game of undercover expedition, inspection, secret service, and imperialistic shadow diplomacy across Central Asia with a particular emphasis attached to the attainment of control and preservation of interests in India. In spite of dangling above as a potential threat like Democles‘ sword, the Great Game was never palpably transmuted into an open strife between the British and Russians. Furthermore, the absence of such a term as the Great Game in Russian historical records pinpoints the partial nature of the term and dispute springing from British Imperialism sustained by Victorian foreign policy as well as Russophobia. In Rudyard Kipling: Creative Adventurer Seon Manley calls reader’s attention to this enthralling imperial backdrop against which the novel unfolds as he illuminates the Indian Secret Service’s major scope of interest which can plainly be observed in Kim, as well:
The Indian Secret Service, the framework for „Kim“,
had been founded by Colonel Montgomerie of the
Indian Survey Department, who had actually surveyed
the Himalayas. The big question in those days was
how one surveyed what lay beyond that great mountain
range. There was one way Montgomerie thought he
could do it, but he must find natives who could be
trained to go where white men could not go. If the white
men were to go, he would be captured. He would stand
out too clearly. Montgomerie hired such natives, who
became „players“; the surveys they conducted were
„games“. . . . Montgomerie’s men were taught to survey, to take
compass bearings, to measure the altitudes of the mountains, and
to find out what lay behind that hard core of unknown Tibet
beyond the border.
(Rudyard Kipling 146)
As in consistency with Manley’s elucidation of how the Great Game was acted out, in the novel Kim is designated to be convenient to be trained as a secret agent thanks to his sharp and shrewd intelligence, capability of communicating in the indigenous language (Hindu), comprehensive cognition of folklore – traditions and traits – varying considerably among different castes as can plainly be observed in his extensive acquaintance with proverbs, and last but not the least his sun-tanned tawny skin which functions as a ‚disguise‘ camouflaging his hereditary Irish complexion. As hinted at through Kim’s physical portrayal like a true native Indian which stands in stark contrast with his Irish descent, Kim’s identity – as can definitely be expected in such a ‚varicoloured, variegated, and vibrant‘ imperial setting – is an amalgamation of both native Indian traits as well as ‚appearance‘ and British background bequeathed through heredity inevitably like the blooming of a well-sown and properly watered succulent cherry seed when it ripens. Kim’s ambigious – or rather not decisively categorizable – identity which can be reckoned as another remarkable manifestation of British Imperial Ideology, engages the reader’s attention throughout the novel, particularly since the revelation of Kim’s ‚physical‘ identity as the son of Irish Kimball O’Hara at the English Camp by Reverend Bennett and Father Victor thanks to the amulet wrapped around his neck until the very end of the final chapter where teardrops smoothly trickle down his crumpled cheeks amidst his persistent questioning of his actual identity to which he cannot come up with an assured answer that would enable him to settle this pestering question nibbling at his mind:
“ . . . Ye believe in Providence, Bennett?”
“I hope so.”
“Well, I believe in miracles, so it comes to the same
thing. Powers of Darkness! Kimball O’Hara! And his son!
But then he’s a native, and I saw Kimball married myself
to Annie Shott. How long have you had these things, boy?”
“Ever since I was a little baby.“ Father Victor stepped
forward quickly and opened the front of Kim’s upper garment.
„You see, Bennett, he’s not very black. What’s your name?”
“Kim.”
(Kim 74)
Something I owe to the soil that grew –
More to the life that fed –
But most to Allah Who gave me two
Separate sides to my head.
(Kim 113)
“I am Kim. I am Kim. And what is Kim?” His soul repeated
it again and again.
He did not want to cry, – had never felt less like crying in
his life, – but of a sudden easy, stupid tears trickled down his
nose.
(Kim 241-242)
In “Vision in Kipling’s Novels” Mark Kinkead-Weekes emphasizes this unsettled identity problem confronting and palpably bothering Kim as he also acknowledges Kim’s identity as split into two between the Western British hemisphere and the Eastern Native Indian hemisphere: “For Kim, however, the conflict between the two worlds is neither understood nor resolved – indeed, the self-questioning and loss of identity is far more acute” (Kinkead-Weekes 225-226). This straddling identity (un)belongingness accompanied by resourcefulness as a distinct trait attributable to the characterization of Kim, which Cedric Watts defines as a fabulous chameleonic amalgamation of East and West, provides Kim with a major advantage in his being singled out as an ‘investable’ nominee who deserves being cared for and supplied with due ‘education’ by the imperial discretion: “He passes as both British ‘Sahib’ and Indian lad, leader and beggar, schemer and benefactor; now he can be a White boy, now Brown-skinned” (Watts 10).
In the novel education is depicted to be exploited as a principal device of imperial mind through which the ideology of “making a man of oneself” is imposed upon the individual like a syringe injected into the carotid artery to bestow upon a helpless patient a whiff of life as can be witnessed in Bennett’s following statements regarding education in which he perceivably betrays a derogatory tone while addressing Kim: “ ‘You will be sent to a school. Later on, we shall see. . . . You will be what you’re told to be’ said Bennett; ‘and you should be grateful that we’re going to help you’ ” (Kipling 81). Imperial Ideology targetting at the patterning of individual’s mind in a fixed way as to enable him/her to hail and ‚worship‘ the imperial might can be asserted to have been disguised in flesh and bones in Father Victor’s following statement which can be assessed as a striking motto of imperial ideology: “ . . . an‘ we’re goin’to make a man of you” (Kipling 85). Colonel Creighton’s repetition of this imperial motto uttered primarily by Father Victor seals the validity of preponderant significance attached to it among the representatives of British Imperialism: “They’ll make a man o‘ you, O’Hara, at St. Xavier’s – a white man, an‘ I hope, a good man” (Kipling 101). As briefly winked at as a distinguishing component of Kim’s character in the previous paragraph, resourcefulness which involves Kim’s overflowing willingness to explore and internalize – if not always wholeheartedly identify with – the ‘way’ of things with respect to both practical execution and theoretical knowledge as illustrated in his mastering of the Hindu language, assists Kim’s admission to the imperial school St.Xavier as he draws attention of the ruling eye’s observant gaze which relentlessly seeks for suitable candidates worth ‘recruiting’ at the service of the empire: “To accumulate knowledge of a different culture may entail respect for it; but such knowledge may also facilitate the wielding of power over it” (Watts 13). Watts’s comment on the crucial role education assumes in the initiation and ‘recruitment’ of an individual into its own ranks by the empire dovetails with Benedict Anderson’s appraisal of education – with reference to the then chairman of the committee responsible for public education Babington Macaulay – as a most influential medium enabling native Indian’s full-fledged, voluntary, and vigorous identification with English identity: “A thoroughly English educational system was to be introduced which, in Macaulay’s own ineffable words, would create ‘a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals and in intellect.’” (Anderson 91).
As can be derived from the extracts given above, imperial ideology, whether willingly or indeliberately, involves the repercussion of fomenting a racist attitude at the expense of the infringement of the other’s integrity since that other is exposed to being labelled and despised as the inferior one, as can be discerned in the degrading hierarchical relationship between the sahib and the native. This disgraceful relationship engendered by the imperial agent’s or ruler’s, if not always necessarily imperial, mind is articulated by Kim as well during his “imprisonment” at St. Xavier’s: “ . . . St. Xavier’s looks down on boys who ‚go native altogether.‘ One must never forget that one is a Sahib, and that some day, when examinations are passed, one will command natives. Kim made a note of this, for he began to understand where examinations led” (Kipling 107). Relatedly, imperial mind does not refrain from trampling on individual’s choice of occupation and way of life in a wider sense by endeavouring to force her/him to be trained in accordance with her/his capabilities as can be noticed in Kim’s being singled out as an appropriate candidate deserving to be ‚brought up‘ as a secret agent and an astute, courageous player of the Great Game in the skirts of the Himalayas at Her Majesty’s service: “ . . . Colonel Sahib, only once in a thousand years is a horse born so well fitted for the game as this our colt. And we need men” (Kipling 144). Imperial Ideology which assumes commitment to “make a man of” Kim in a bragging manner, to one’s amazement (!), does not promise to “make a good corpse of” the deceased one in the Great Game as it turns a cold shoulder to that corpse by assuming an atrociously indifferent attitude: “ ‘But cannot the Government protect? ‘We of the Game are beyond protection. If we die, we die. Our names are blotted from the book. That is all.’ . . . ‘When everyone is dead the Great Game is finished. Not before.’ ” (Kipling 173&190).
On the other hand, Teshoo Lama’s depiction as a virtuous, calm, merciful, reliable, and benevolent Tibetan priest fastidiously abstaining from indulging in earthly strifes and corporeal pleasures of the Wheel of Things as a devout pilgrim on his arduous quest for the River of the Arrow which he conceives to cleanse him of his sins sparks a stark contrast to the greedy, grudging, vengeful, indifferent, disloyal disposition of imperial ideology as reflected in the crooked purpose of “making a man of” which proclaims a pricipal requirement and portrays austere constitution of the Great Game. In a sense, the Lama can be affirmed to serve as a respectful, decent, complaisant critic of and dazzling contrast to engrossing imperial policy which indulges in “our clamour, our foolishness, our vanity, our senses” (Howe 316). Actually the conflict presumably displayed in the novel may be argued to exist between the Lama and all the others entangled in the Wheel of Things rather than between Russians and the British as also observed by Kinkead-Weekes: “He (Kipling) makes little attempt to make us take the Russo-British conflict seriously; . . . The real opposition is between the Lama and both sides of the Game. The climax of the novel is set in a natural perspective which dwarfs Us as well as Them, and We are as implicated in the blow which fells the Lama as They who actually strike it” (“Vision in Kipling’s Novels” 227-228). As emphatically suggested by Kinkead-Weekes, Kipling is not primarily concerned with the representation of the clash between the British and Russians. Rather, the opposition intended to be illustrated between the Lama and both sides of the Great Game lies in the main scope of Kipling’s interest. That Harish Trivedi, who epithets Kim as a novel “quite uncharacteristic of Kipling”, highlights the role ascribable to Lama’s portrayal as one indifferently posing stark contrast to the rapacious political struggle transpiring around him can be considered an attribute contributing to the accentuation of narrative’s imperial backdrop: “Ultimately, as it turns out, the greatest difference between Kim and the lama is . . . the Orientalist’ one, that one is as worldly and materialistic as the other is unworldly and spiritual” (Trivedi xxx). In this regard, through Lama’s characterization, Kipling subtly endeavours to underline the pettiness of human being’s demonic greed as is revealed in an imperial setting where trivial human beings are indulged in a game of vanity as deceived, spoilt players in an abominable state no better than that of the cobra which arouses Lama’s pity. Lama’s peaceful passivism requiring strict avoidance from any kind of ostentatious behaviour that tends to imply even the slightest trace of pride with the welcomed exception of action carried out in order to obtain merit vividly demonstrates the huge gap between his virtuous insight into existence and imperial ideology’s uncaring preoccupation with making profit rather than acquiring approval: “To abstain from action is well – except to acquire merit” (Kipling 183).
Concludingly, as has been meant to be expatiated on throughout this paper, Rudyard Kipling’s masterpiece Kim elaborates on a subtle criticism of British Imperial Ideology through the portrayal of Kim’s identity problem bothering him throughout the novel as a consequence of being born in an imperial setting, exploitation of education as a means of ‚brainwashing‘ through which a certain role-model and code of agreeable behaviour is imposed upon the individual, representation of irrevocably cruel and deceitful nature of the Great Game indicating the meanness of human nature under the sway of a predominant mood trumpeting the priority of imperial interests, and last but not the least Teshoo Lama’s delineation as a shining paragon of virtue embodying modesty, clemency, charity, and leniency which eventually endow him with a well-deserved redemption.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London; New York: Verso, 2006.
Kipling, Rudyard. Kim. London: Wordsworth Classics, 2009.
Gilbert, Elliott L. The Good Kipling: Studies in the Short Story. Athens: Ohio UP, 1971.
Howe, Irving. “The Pleasures of Kim.” in Kim, by Rudyard Kipling, 315-327. London: Penguin
English Library, 2012.
Kinkead-Weekes, Mark. “Vision in Kipling’s Novels.” in Kipling’s Mind and Art, edited by
Andrew Rutherford, 197-234. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1964.
Manley, Seon. Rudyard Kipling: Creative Adventurer. New York: Vanguard, 1965.
Trivedi, Harish. Introduction to Kim, by Rudyard Kipling, xix-xlviii. London: Penguin Classics,
2011.
Watts, Cedric. Introduction to Kim, by Rudyard Kipling, 5-25. London: Wordsworth Classics, 2009.