Understanding Kipling’s Novel The Man Who Would Be King In Its Historical Context

After the Indian Mutiny in 1857, the British attitude towards India changed in a multitude of ways. While Queen Victoria’s Proclamation provided religious and cultural freedom to the natives, the British simultaneously reduced contact with the Indian society. This was showcased by the establishment of civil lines near cantonments and an influx of British soldiers within the army.

Thus, it is no surprise that Kipling’s short story “The Man Who Would Be King” reflects such sentiments. From the initial train journey, the story reflects the British superiority that stems from the dichotomy existing between the natives and the British in the post-mutiny era of British India. As the story progresses Kipling translates this dichotomy into a warning against miscegenation in order to preserve the empire while establishing parallels between his story and British India in the late nineteenth century.

Within the late nineteenth century, two different schools of thought emerged within the British government in regard to governing India. The liberal views stood by the concept of promoting news ideas of governance and bringing in changes, leading to a homogenization of the two societies. While the conservatists resorted to the traditional methods employed within India and governing through them. After the mutiny, a clear shift from the liberal to the conservative school of thought was witnessed. This shift caused clear differences to emerge within the late nineteenth century which have been reflected within Kipling’s short story. It is this conservative view, that also led to arguments against miscegenation.

The status difference between the two societies can be witnessed from the very start. The variation in different train classes provided the ground to depict that as the First and Second class housed the British while Intermediate was predominantly native. The services provided within the First and Second classes were significantly better those available within the Intermediate, if available. This dichotomy was noticed within the health sector as well; the Public Health Act was enforced within Britain leading to numerous positive reforms while people died of cholera epidemics within India.

It may be argued that the British had a primary responsibility to their own country, but the fact remains that their self-imposed moral superiority translated into a responsibility towards their Indian counterparts too. Negligence for the sub-continent is described further by Kipling through the phrase “nobody cares a straw for the internal administration of Native States so long as oppression and crime are kept within decent limits[1]”. Thus, this shows that most natives were forced to settle with subpar living standards. This prioritization by the Britsh of their own wants over India’s needs supports the phrase, “Calcutta, one might say, became filthy only as London became clean[2]” and also highlights the British superiority nature.

It was this self-proclaimed superiority that led to the derogatory remarks regarding the Kafirs, upon the reunion of the narrator, Peachy and Dravot. The people were referred to as “utter brutes[3]” and the narrator remarked that Peachy and Dravot would be “cut to pieces before you’re fifty miles across the Border[4]” by these people. Such stereotypes are showcased previously as well when the narrator refers to the native rulers as “drugged, drunk or disease[5]”. This negative mindset is established due to comments such as “’I hate Indians’,” Winston Churchill trumpeted. ‘They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.[6]’” At the same time, the natives were also to blame for this, specifically due to the vile acts carried out within the 1857 Mutiny. The betrayal by Nana Sahib followed up by the mass murder of British women and children placed the Indians within a sphere of distrust in the eyes of the Anglo-Indian community. Thus, relations within the two societies started off on a back foot.

The similarities between the story and the British India branch out further from the negative views of the natives. The concept of keeping the trust of the taluqdars, known as landowners, and the Raj remained consistent within Dravot’s model. This was highlighted by Dravot’s Council of War and his Privy Council; these councils also encapsulated the idea of keeping the natives within the circle of state affairs but not providing them any real power. An epitome of this was the ‘introduction of a council advisory to the Viceroy under the Indian Councils Act of 1868[7]’, such acts ensured that the Indians did not have any real governing power as they could not pass any legislation.

By restricting the Indians to simple advisory roles, the British ensured that the dichotomy strengthened, with the British concreting their position as the ruling part of society through the posts of Governors and Viceroy. Simultaneously, they kept the native society content through advisory roles. With these parallel views and the intentions of their travels to establish themselves as gods within Kafiristan, it would not be wrong to consider the empire of Peachy and Dravot as a microcosm of British India within the late nineteenth century.

Negligence of local customs was another parallel concept within the British and Dravot’s empire. An example of this is going against Masonic laws, the laws that were employed by the natives of Kafiristan, to establish a lodge. The main purpose of the Lodge was to provide comfort in ruling as they increased their influence. Thus, once again prioritizing their comfort. Having witnessed the establishment of the Doctrine of Lapse by Lord Dalhousie, which is infamously known for the capture of Jhang and Nagpur, Kipling was accustomed to such acts and thus have seeped into his short story. The replacement of Persian with English as the official language of the subcontinent further showcases this idea. Therefore, it is no surprise that such neglect of local laws has been portrayed within the ‘Man Who Would Be King’. Yet the epitome of this superiority can be witnessed within the following quote,

“I’ll make an Empire! These men aren’t niggers; they’re English! Look at their eyes — look at their mouths. Look at the way they stand up. They sit on chairs in their own houses. They’re the Lost Tribes or something like it, and they’ve grown to be English[8].”

This quote clearly exhibits the inferiority with which the natives were seen, while also highlighting racial tendencies that existed. He presumes that their resemblance to English makes them more cultured and civilized. The phrase, “sit on chairs in their own houses[9]” brings attention to the derogatory light the Natives are seen through by Dravot. Such pejorative views remained a widespread notion within British India, especially with the introduction of the Indian Civil Services. The English were considered more superior thus, ironically dominating the Indian Civil Services. While it may be argued that the examinations were open to everyone, the fact that they were held in England within the English language excluded the majority of the Indian society. This tangent of superiority seeps into Rudyard’s writing within, ‘The Man Who Would Be King’ and also in his infamous poem, ‘The White Man’s Burden’.

Kipling utilizes the previously established British superiority to support his argument against miscegenation. As Dravot’s interactions with the Kafirs increases and his desire for a wife is introduced, various warnings against miscegenation are provided in different forms. On a primary level, Peachy warns against having a non-European wife by reminding Dravot about his own experience with the Bengali girl. His dismay is quite evident as he talks about how “she ran away with the Station Master’s servant and half my month’s pay”. This incident casts relationships with non-Europeans in a deleterious manner, justifying the taboo against them within late nineteenth-century British India. The taboo increased exponentially to the extent that, “by the late nineteenth century, a local mistress could cost a government servant his promotion[10].”

This is witnessed further in the story as Billy Fish, one of Dravot’s most trust advisor provides a second warning against mixed-race marriage. His words demonstrate great concern, “if you can induce the King to drop all this nonsense about marriage, you’ll be doing him and me and yourself a great service[11].” These words could be considered a mirror to the warning issued by Lord Crewe to those involved in mixed-race marriages. His words, “disgrace and official ruin…...will certainly follow[12]” are an accurate representation of Kipling’s conservative view within this regard. Both views branch out from the idea that your status is lowered by engaging in sexual or any other kind of relationship with people who are not white. They believed that they “lost the purity of their blood[13]” and decreased their chances of survival.

The Darwinian theory was used to support this idea, as they believed that interracial marriages would lead to the birth of weaker children leading to fewer chances of survival. This concept was extended to brothels as well, which were regulated ensuring that “women working in a brothel for white men were forbidden to accept other clients[14].” Thus, miscegenation was considered to distort the biological lines between the ruler and ruled and lead to the birth of a weaker generation.

The final warning to the Anglo-Indian community against miscegenation is brought in the form of Dravot’s death and Peachy’s crucifixion. Both of these actions are spurred by Dravot’s marriage to a native girl whose bite uncovers the façade of the two Englishmen being gods according to Masonic religion. Kipling thus, showcases that such miscegenation would always have an unfortunate end. He follows up the words of Lord Crewe, showcasing that anyone who tries to break this taboo will be ruined. Warnings against miscegenation have been delivered in Kipling’s other writings as well, including “Beyond the Pale” and “Without Benefit of the Clergy.” Therefore, John McBratney makes the analysis that “it is Kipling himself who projects his fears of miscegenation onto the Indian and maims or kills by proxy[15]”.

Most of Kipling’s readers were Anglo-Indian who had been influenced by societal events and thus, the notion of the British and Indian, the ruler and the ruled, marrying was frightening and unacceptable. Thus, he translates it into a warning against miscegenation and the dire consequences that would ensue.

Throughout the story, the overarching concept of portraying miscegenation within British India as vile opens up arguments towards the hypocritical nature of Kipling as a writer and the British, in general. The natives are represented as uncivilized who would seize the first opportunity to free themselves from the reign of colonialism while failing to expose the colonial system. The poverty that resulted from the entry of the British, which has been admitted by John Sullivan, the President of the Board of Revenue in Madras, in the following words, “Our system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the good things from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames[16].” The Drain of Wealth coupled with lack of representation of the Indians within their own country’s government was bound to cause discontent; Kipling remained negligent regarding this entire aspect. Thus, it can be easily argued that Kipling’s warning against miscegenation while being one-sided is the result of racist tendencies existing within the late nineteenth century.

Moreover, Rudyard Kipling, in order to caters to his Anglo-Indian audience shows the natives in a negative light: portraying them as brutes, deceitful and uncultured. This fulfills a dual purpose, on a primary level depicting the natives as inferior and on a secondary level, showcasing how the natives were not people the Anglo-Indian society could socialize with. He does this successfully through the uncivilized Kafirs and Peachy’s encounter with the Bengali woman. After establishing this notion, Kipling goes a step further by providing a vivid image of disgrace and ruin that would follow if the Anglo-Indian community did not heed the warnings against miscegenation in the form of Dravot’s killing.

Thus, ‘The Man Who Would Be King’ provides a lopsided view of British India, a view that inherently appeases the Anglo-Indian community while failing to facilitate the native Indians. He also casts similarities between the story and British India in the late nineteenth century, to increase the impact of his warnings and clear directions as to which direction the Anglo-Indian community should not steer towards. Thus, despite being raised up in India and harboring positive memories he depicts a very conservative view within the short story, “The Man Who Would Be King.”