"The Man Who Would Be King" (1888) by Rudyard Kipling

      What is the relation of the narrator to Daniel Dravot and Peachey Carnehan?
        He first seems to side with them, running their message and warning them off a dangerous scam, but then reports them to the authorities. Could we connect this ambivalent attitude to his relationship to the native population, as in his characterization of the Intermediate Carriage? How is his attitude like that of the con artists? (e.g., p. 157: "They are the dark places of the earth.") His status appears ambiguous at first, as his mission into the wilderness could be seen as similar to their cons; however, he turns them in (p. 158) and legitimately has the position that they only pretend to. His ability to turn on them despite their supposed "brotherhood" through Masonic rituals (shown by their shared use of secret language) suggests the underlying problem in the Masonic claim of brotherhood that opens the story, but which is betrayed by the sense in which Carnehan and Dravot remain dedicated to exploiting/taking from their "brothers."
      Similarly, we can see the language of brotherly love used to mask exploitation throughout the colonial world. In his career as a newspaperman, the narrator spends most of his time waiting on news from far away, while stating explicitly that there is no interest in what goes on closer at hand (pp. 158-59) -- at least if it involves the native population. There seems to be a general "colonialist" attitude that events in the home country, in Europe, are the ones that will shape the world -- but note that the sameness of the news from home, and the anonymity of the narrator's description of it, undermines the surface claim that the distant news is the more important.
      What is the relation of the "kings'" adventure and the larger world?
        The story of two con artists who establish a kingdom in the remote part of Afghanistan parallels British methods of governing India, ruling through tributary leaders after frightening them with modern weaponry. They recruit a native army to support their rule, which is cemented by native acceptance of their superiority: they are seen as gods connected with poorly remembered Masonic rituals. Note that Dravot refuses to eat until the food is offered by the most senior men (p. 170), thereby establishing his place at the very top of the hierarchy. Their rule is not all bad - as the British did in India, they put an end to intertribal warfare in a kind of Pax Dravotiana. Also see that Dravot remains a patriotic Brit throughout, even though British society has no real place for him. He proposes to conquer an empire and then turn it over as a gift to Queen Victoria (p. 178) -- reflecting a delusion of grandeur perhaps rooted in his own sense of being at the bottom of British society?
        Phillip Mallett ("Kipling and the Hoax" in Mallett, Kipling Considered (1989)) says that Kipling draws attention to the assumption that whites will inevitably rise to power over non-whites, showing the falseness of the assumption. But Kipling ultimately evades the general question: There is no suggestion that the claim to power is itself "inherently fradulent," as Mallett argues (103). Rather, Kipling suggests that Daniel's error is that he forgot himself by overreaching, thus exposing himself to defeat.
        The narrator, and in particular his occupation, helps to establish the connection between the action of the story and the goings-on in the outside world; as Paul Fussell states, “The ‘frame’ of the newspaper office . . . provides constant irony throughout the story; the incredible events of the creation and loss of the Kingdom of Kafiristan are told to a newspaperman in a newspaper office, and yet, because the events have real instead of actual meaning, they are not news.” (“Irony, Freemasonry, and Humane Ethics in Kipling’s ‘The Man Who Would Be King’” ELH 25, 3 (September 1958) 225)
      What is the meaning of the "Law" in this story?
        The idea of law is expressed at beginning ("The Law. . . lays down a fair conduct of life. . ."), and used in various ways. At one level is the common law of Great Britain.  The English tended to see themselves as bringing law and order to the chaos of warring native peoples; English law is characterized as benign, native law as cruel. Note this in relation to the Pax Dravotiana, in which justice appears (at least in Peachey's telling) to be fairly and benignly administered, and to the ultimate disposition of Dravot, Carnehan, and Billy Fish - murdered, mutilated, or crucified. The Masonic law is presented as a kind of "higher law" that binds men across racial and national divides, and generally connects to God's law (via the frequent references to the Bible).   One of Kipling's concerns is the probable fate of the British colonizers if they should lose their moral authority, which they would do by violating  the higher law - and note Dravot's willingness to violate this law, and his own contract with Peachey, to satisfy his own desires.
      What causes the "kings" to lose their crowns?
        One way to see the story is as an expression of moral failing.  By revealing himself to be no better than the people around him, Daniel Dravot loses the essential sense of his own superiority (accepted by those he governs) and can no longer be "king."
On another level, the source of his downfall could be seen as excessive intimacy with the "Natives," which frequently happens among colonizers and colonized, but tends to be officially frowned upon and may socially stigmatize those engaging in such intimacy.  Thus, Dravot's desire for a wife from among the people (". . . dealings with a woman in foreign parts. . . could not but be risky" pp. 180-81) may indicate he has allowed himself to become too close to those he has governed. Or does it? His problem is also connected to a failure to understand their belief system - to comprehend the fear of the woman sentenced to marry the god (parallel to the incomprehension of the British colonial bureaucrat Pilkington in Soyinka's Death and the King's Horseman).
        Fussell claims that Dravot ultimately proves himself worthy to be a king at the end through his “act of magnanimous personal sacrifice” (“Irony, Freemasonry, and Humane Ethics in Kipling’s ‘The Man Who Would Be King’” ELH 25, 3 (September 1958) 219).  Dravot takes responsibility for his error and urges his companion and his most loyal followers to save themselves; however, both Peachey and Billy Fish similarly show nobility by standing by him.  On the other hand, Jeffrey Meyers suggests that the adventurers "fail as kings because they have no moral standards comparable to the rule of the British Empire.”  Their relationship to the natives “is expressed purely in terms of brute force and military conquest,” which, along with their excessive greed "represent[s] the very worst kind of unprincipled colonialism.” (“The Idea of Moral Authority in ‘The Man Who Would Be King.’” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900.  8, 4 (Autumn 1968) 712, 716)  In other words, the kings fail because they lose their moral authority.
      Is this story a comedy or a tragedy?
       There are two possible story structures here: "The Tragedy of Daniel Dravot," the man who overreached himself, and the farce of the imitation Empire. As you read, note the humorous touches, as in the description of Dravot and Carnehan disguised for their journey across the border, but see too the frequent foreshadowings of death and destruction that Dravot, at least, ignores.  Then consider what might be the "native" perspective on these events.  How would it appear to one of the mountain villagers?  Does Kipling provide any vision of this perspective?  How do you think Kipling would view the story: as tragedy, or as farce?
 

Back to Postcolonial Syllabus
Back to Wally Hastings' Homepage