Racial Undertone in Kim by Rudyard Kipling

Edward Said was one of many authors to respond with a short reaction to Kim. What was particularly interesting about Said’s critique was his revelation of the underlying political connections within the novel. Specifically, he talks about how Kipling was able to write from the view point of a member of a “superior civilization” due to the support from the European culture. At first, Said’s claims sounded like nonsense to me. I thought Kim was just a simple story of a British boy’s mischief and daily life in India. The more I thought about Kipling, however, the more I began to agree with Said. Kipling wrote other works such as White Man’s Burden which made it very clear as to where he thought he stood in comparison to other races.

After realizing this, I took a second look at different parts from the novel and was able to better understand some of the awkwardness and tension between the British and the Indians. What I first thought to be simply cultural differences could have very well been Kipling’s underlying prejudice seeping through into his writing. This can be proven when Said references an essay written by Annan who claimed Kipling as being similar to the “founders of modern sociological discourse” who believed in the necessity of the British government ruling in India. Kipling believed that the Indians depended on the “social control” since he viewed the British as the superior race according to Annan.

Ann Parry was another author who critiqued the novel Kim. I found it interesting that she noticed that historical events and events that happened in the novel didn’t match up chronologically. She references Page who says “the dating of the action precedes by a generation or so the date of composition.” In short, Parry concludes that Kipling was writing about an older India that Kipling lived in; Kipling was writing according to his own experiences despite the fact that the text itself seems to be set closer to the time that Kipling is physically writing the book.

Essentially, Kipling didn’t take into account the change that had been going on in India as far as the drive for independence and whatnot. He still wrote from his personal stand point regardless of the fact that the book seemed to be set closer to the time of its conception. Kipling very well may’ve been aware of this. At the time the book was written, threats from Russia in the Northwest challenged the British rule in India which caused the Brits to maintain a state of watchfulness for some time according to Parry’s writing. Kipling, being an imperialist, may not have wanted to portray the anxious feelings of the British in his writing and, therefore, wrote based on his own experiences from his time in India. This way, the Brits would still seem powerful and dominant over the Indians.

Again, knowing this helps the readers realize the difference between the British and Indian characters in the novel. Having the background knowledge of Kipling being an imperialist, as well as, knowing the historical events surrounding the time of the novels birth allows the reader to pick up on subtle hints of prejudice and/or chronological fallacies.

In conclusion, I have somewhat combined Said and Parry’s to formulate my own opinion on Kipling and Kim. All in all, I think Kim was simply another one of Kipling’s racially skewed views of the colonized peoples of Britain. The extreme detail that Kipling wrote about India was simply him displaying his artistic talent. I believe that the real motivation of the novel stemmed from Kipling’s views of the British being the superior civilization.