The Jungle Book

This story uses the differences between animal species, and their disparate levels of intelligence, to explore the concept of obedience. Kipling hence portrays how a successful empire requires the collaboration of many different individuals in the service of a greater authority. The narrator, a white soldier who understands animal language, overhears a group of many animal species who represent different positions within the Anglo-Indian military. The mules speak in a working-class dialect, while the elephant speaks in an acrolect and has a greater understanding of the purpose of military encounters, mirroring how humans in the military are ranked by class. As the highest-ranking animal, the elephant also demonstrates an awareness of why animals must be subservient to humans. Two Tails says that he can “see inside [his] head what will happen when a shell bursts” (287) while the bulls cannot, suggesting that his higher level of cognitive ability makes him brave enough to confront the possibility of death in battle. However, Two Tails recognizes that his ability is below that of a man:

[I]f I was like my captain—he can see things inside his head before the firing begins, and he shakes all over, but he knows too much to run away—if I was like him I could pull the guns. But if I were as wise as all that I should never be here. I should be a king in the forest, as I used to be, sleeping half the day and bathing when I liked (289).

Kipling suggests that the innate wisdom that humans possess allows them to both understand the concept of the future, evaluate the risk of death, and still choose to face danger for ideological reasons; therefore, they have the right to rule over the animals.

The conclusion of the story presents an imperialist perspective that affiliates discipline and order with the right to rule. At the meeting between the Viceroy of India and the Amir of Afghanistan, the Afghan men and animals are depicted as less obedient, prone to disrupting the camp, and “savage” in the narrator’s terms. The Amir and his Central Asian officers are frightened and amazed by the obedience of the Indian animals, suggesting that their society would not be able to enforce such impressive discipline. This prompts one of the Anglo-Indian officers to explain that the power of the military animals comes from obedience to the queen:

[T]hey obey, as the men do. Mule, horse, elephant, or bullock, he obeys his driver, and the driver his sergeant, and the sergeant his lieutenant, and the lieutenant his captain, and the captain his major, and the major his colonel, and the colonel his brigadier commanding three regiments, and the brigadier his general, who obeys the Viceroy, who is the servant of the Empress. Thus it is done (300).

This recital of a chain of command exemplifies imperialist notions of hierarchy and underpins the stories’ theme of The Social Hierarchy of Empire. The Central Asian chief remarks in response that he wishes people in Afghanistan were that obedient, prompting the other office to conclude that this is why Afghanistan must submit to the orders of the Viceroy. Historically, the second Anglo-Afghan War ended in 1880 with the defeat of Ayub Khan and the installation of an Amir selected by the British. Kipling’s depiction of this historical moment reinforces the notion that the British Empire has rightfully earned its global authority by virtue of superior laws and rules. By relying on racist stereotypes that affiliate the Central Asian people with chaos and disorder, Kipling uses the submission of animals to more intelligent humans to allegorically represent the submission of colonized people to the supposedly enlightened British Raj.