Moral of The Jungle Books: Always follow the rules set before you or be punished for your actions.
Children’s stories are often known for their fantastic settings, exciting adventures, and moralistic endings. The moral to these childhood stories are the things that stick with the readers long after they have become adults. Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Books is no exception to this norm. Though there are many stories within the Books, there is a reoccurring moral: follow the rules set before you, and you will be rewarded. On the flipside, deviate from the rules, and you will be punished. The Jungle Books much is determined by different sets of laws. The civilized animals follow various laws of the jungle in order to survive in their own microcosms. These laws (called the Law of the Jungle) are crucial to life in the Mowgli stories, as well as the garden and family in “Rikki-Tikki Tavi.”
Shere Khan is the main antagonist in most of the Mowgli stories. His attack on Man begins Mowgli’s adventure through the jungle, and his death is the end of Mowgli’s life-long goal. Kipling goes out of his way to make this poor tiger unappealing to his Victorian audience. A tiger is already not going to be a loveable character in a children’s story (this is pre-Aladdin,) but the fact that he’s a lame tiger adds to his hideous image. If there’s anything worse than a regular tiger, it’s definitely a tiger that limps! The tiger also does not like to hunt challenging game and often goes for slow cattle. Shere Khan attempting to kill the infant Mowgli is the ultimate reason why the audience is not going to like him. “The Law of the Jungle, which never orders anything without a reason, forbids every beast to eat Man except when he is killing to show his children how to kill…,” but Shere Khan obviously does not care about the Law of the Jungle (Kipling 3.) He also teaches the younger wolves to feel bitter towards Mowgli because they cannot look him in the eye and urges them to kick the Man-Cub out of the pack. Essentially, Shere Khan manipulates the wolf pack into turning against Mowgli so he can finally reap the fruits of his failed hunt.
As a result of his discord with the Law of the Jungle, Shere Khan is killed by Mowgli, who is righteous and follows every Law diligently. In contrast to the tiger, Mowgli learns the Master Word from Baloo, and he learns how to live in harmony with the Jungle and its inhabitants. Part of the reason Mowgli is not afraid of the other animals is because he has been so faithful to the Jungle’s Laws. He even says, “’I was born in the jungle, I have obeyed the Laws of the Jungle…’” when Bagheera warns him that Shere Khan wants to kill him (Kipling 12.) Indeed, Mowgli’s obedience to the Law of the Jungle and to his studies saves his life twice in “Kaa’s Hunting.” The only way Baloo and Bagheera found Mowgli after the Monkey-People took him is because he remembered the Master Word. When Rann the Kite delivers Mowgli’s distress message, he adds, “The boy held the Master Word. I could have done no less [than to help him] (Kipling 34.)” Mowgli’s Master Word saves him again when he is deposited into the snake-filled ruins (I bet dear, old Indiana Jones would’ve liked that Master Word in his day.)
Eventually, Mowgli’s harmony with the Law of the Jungle and Shere Khan’s discord clash in a final battle between the two. Mowgli uses his loyalty to the wolves (those who remained loyal to him) to kill the tiger. Although the cattle that trample Shere Khan are given to Mowgli as a job for Man, I think the cattle are seen as ironic in respect to how Shere Khan dies. The lame, lazy tiger would only kill cattle before Mowgli came into the picture. Killing cattle and killing man are against the Law of the Jungle. As a result, Mowgli and the cattle get revenge on Shere Khan, and the tiger gets what he deserves. The triumph of Mowgli and the defeat of Shere Khan are evident examples of the righteous being rewarded and the wicked being punished.
Rikki-Tikki Tavi’s story shows that those who make sure others follow rules are also rewarded. In an imperialistic society, it is crucial that there are those who make sure others are following the rules and laws of the mother country. These people must protect the mother country from the uncivilized and put these rouges in their places. Under these circumstances, Rikki-Tikki Tavi is a mongoose among men. From the first encounter with his enemy, the cobra, Rikki knows that is duty is to kill snakes and to protect his newfound, good, British family; he takes his job in stride. Rikki kills the evil cobras Nag and Nagaina, and he saves the lives of the family and the garden-dwellers. His rewards are free meals from the good, British family every night and bragging rights for life. He asks his (good, British) family, “What are you bothering for? All the cobras are dead; and if they weren’t, I’m here” to let them know that he will continue to protect them (Kipling 102.) Although Rikki is essentially being civilized and used by the family, I don’t think Kipling’s Victorian England audience is going to find this to be negative. Rikki is still an animal that a child will adore but not necessarily relate to personally. Instead, they will look to see how this loveable creature does his job well and is rewarded for it. The snakes, on the other hand, cause trouble and are severely punished.
I think that Kipling’s moral of following rules fits perfectly with Victorian imperialism. The primary goal of imperialism is to take “primitive” countries, civilize them, and control them. In order to control these different countries, those living in the “primitive countries” must be obedient under the mother country’s rule. In order to have obedient subjects, the mother country’s rules must be instilled in the people (especially within the mother country itself.) The mother country shows the uncivilized people that those who follow the rules will be greatly rewarded. Those who do not follow the rules are seen as being uncivilized, uncouth, and uncool. They are also punished severely. Nobody wants to be a trouble-maker, especially one like Shere Khan, so the children reading The Jungle Books will strive to be good children and follow the rules like Mowgli and. Then they will grow up to become obedient adults of Victorian England who will then set out to instill Imperial values on the uncivilized parts of the world!
Nice presentation of the moral. It helped to set in motion the didactic current of both Kingsley’s stories and your original post. Interestingly, the actual moral left out the idea of reward that you proclaim in the middle of the first paragraph. I wonder, then, which consequence—reward or punishment—is the proper motivation for following the rules, according to your reading of Kingsley. Moreover, does it matter? Could it be argued that both consequences are motivated by fear? And thus, does the Law of the Jungle work in the same manner? Or might such a Law be an attempt to naturalize behavior away from such fear-motivated notion? With your apt observation of the clash b/w Mowgli’s harmony w/ the Law and Shere Khan’s discord, the Law is revealed as an instrument to preserve righteous behavior and destroy the wicked. Then, Rikki-Tikki-Tavi becomes an extension of Mowgli, in that, as you state, he goes on to eradicate those who do not follow the rules. I like how you have systematized the stories in this way, particularly when placed w/i an imperial context. Great post!
ReplyDeleteOne logistical note: watch out for minor typos.