Moral: The instability represented in imperialist roles of both Mowgli and Rikki-Tikki, are warnings by the author to the British Empire’s impending decline.
When Kipling wrote The Jungle Books, the British Empire was at its pinnacle; however, the empire was also on the heels to begin declining. I believe Kipling saw this decline coming and as a result, began writing The Jungle Books to foreshadow the events that would eventually eat away at England’s absolute monarchy. Kipling identifies himself with Mowgli because he too is a frog, an amphibian, a creature that is able to line in water and on land. The author is an Indian, but he was raised and followed the British law. Also, Kipling traveled seamlessly between America, the western world, and Indian, the eastern world. So his knowledge and prospective aids him to create a character such as Mowgli, who is both strong and weak.
Mowgli’s strength lies in his mental capacity in contrast to the other animals such as the wolves. For example, Baloo cannot teach the wolves all the laws of the jungle because their mental capacity cannot contain large amounts of knowledge. On the other hand, Baloo does teach Mowgli all the laws and as a result, Mowgli has safe passage into other parts of the jungle. Also, Mowgli mental strength is showcased in his ability to strategize, as he does when he gets the other animals to aid him in killing Shere Khane. However, the killing of Shere Khane also demonstrates Mowgli’s weakness, which is his lesser physical constitution compared to the animals. He gets Aklea and Grey Wolf to start a stampede of cattle that circles around Shere Khane killing him. All Mowgli does is give orders just like a king or queen when colonizing and conquering. Mowgli’s weakness symbolizes his instability. Kipling’s “Rikki-Tikki-Tavi” is more or less the same character as Mowgli. The mongoose is like Mowgli in the sense that this white British Family cleans him up to be part of their family with the sole purpose of using him as protection. Rikki-Tikki’s imperial role is instable due to the fact that he too eats eggs. So if the family stops feeding him, he will then eat the bird’s eggs. So as well as the garden’s protector he is also its enemy if worse comes to worse for him.
My moral presents the best possible lesson to be gained from Kipling because it reminds the audience to pay attention to the instability of the characters both their strength and weakness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A cautionary moral to be sure! But what I found most intriguing about your post was its subtle thread of prophecy, which could be attributed to Kipling’s Jungle Books. Moreover, the idea that Mowgli’s amphibian presentation can lead us to an understanding of how Mowgli can contain strength and weakness simultaneously augments such prophecy nicely: there is a rise and fall in the evolution of empire—two characteristics in a single entity. What I was left wanting to know more about, however, was why Mowgli’s weakness only was that which led to a demonstration of his instability. Regarding empire, as well as the way you presented your argument at the outset, wouldn’t the dual attributes of strength and weakness reveal such instability? Is it not appropriate to understand instability in terms of such duality? Keeping this in mind, I wonder, if the discussion of Rikki-Tikki-Tavi had been as extended as that on Mowgli, would the necessity of duality to reveal instability have become clearer.
ReplyDeleteSome logistical notes: Kipling is not an Indian. He is a British subject, who resided in, among other places, India. Be sure to spell the character names as Kipling did (“Shere Khane” should read “Shere Khan”) and watch for minor typos.