In Kipling’s well-intentioned crusade against stereotypes
and contradictions in Indian culture, he reveals his own discrimination and
hypocrisy, probably stemming from his European imperialistic do-gooder
mentality. While I think it’s important and revelatory for Kipling to expose
some Hindus’ contradicting stance on animal treatment and rights, his
all-encompassing language hinders his argument due to the generalizations he
makes about Indians and Indian culture. In contrast to Kipling’s “cultivated
Europe” (990),
Most apparent is Kipling’s bias against Eastern religions. He describes Indian religions as having “topsy-turvy morality,” (995) further insulting Hinduism by calling its religious parables “absurd” and “so remote from every possibility of ordinary life and conduct as to exert no practical influence as a lesson.” (996) I guess from his Christian point of view, parting large bodies of water, getting eaten by a whale and surviving, and coming back from the dead are ‘ordinary’ enough to educate. An open mind and tolerance for different ways of explaining morality would be more acceptable for Kipling’s pseudo-sociological study, which all too often judges its subject in an ethnocentric manner.
Honesty towards the end of Kipling’s sketch of Indians and
their treatment of animals makes this reading a little more worthwhile. He
writes that “it is doubtful whether they are intrinsically worse in this
respect than the rest of the world.” (1035) By acknowledging the general
crappiness of the whole world’s people, Kipling at least equalizes everyone,
just stopping short of realizing that it is very rare to encounter a culture in
which animals are widely respected and cared for. Instead, most nations of the
world, including Kipling’s