In his essay “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell recounts an incident from his time serving as a colonial policeman in Burma in which he was forced to shoot an elephant against his will. The story serves as a metaphor for Orwell’s own experiences as a colonialist and for the British Empire’s role in Burma.
Orwell begins the essay by discussing his dislike of imperial policing and his hatred of the British Empire. He recalls a specific incident in which he was ordered to shoot an elephant that had gone rogue and was terrorizing a village. Orwell was hesitant to kill the animal, but he felt he had no choice in the matter since he was representing the British Empire. After shooting the elephant, Orwell reflects on the incident and what it says about the nature of imperialism.
Orwell argues that the British Empire is built on violence and that those who uphold it are complicit in its crimes. He argues that the only way to end the cycle of violence is to reject imperialism altogether.
SUMMARY:
Beginning with some of his early experiences as a young police officer serving in Burma, Orwell shares some of his memories. Although it has been disputed how much of the essay is autobiographical, we will refer to the narrator as Orwell himself for convenience.
Like other British and European citizens of imperial Burma, he was detested by the locals, who would trip him up during games of football between the Europeans and Burmans and would shout derogatory remarks about their European colonizers in public.
Orwell claims that these experiences left him with two things: they confirmed his already-formed belief that imperialism was bad and they instilled in him a hatred of the hostility that existed between European imperialists and their native subjects. Of course, these two are connected, and Orwell is aware of the Buddhist priests' resentment toward being subject to European rule. He understands this point of view, but it's unpleasant to be the target of someone else's mockery or contempt. Between his "hatred of the empire" he served and his "rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make [his] job impossible," he finds himself torn.
The main action of Orwell's narrative occurs in Moulmein, a city in Lower Burma. One of the tame elephants that the locals own and use has been causing mayhem throughout the bazaar after giving its rider, or mahout, the slip. It has destroyed huts, butchered cows, and descended on fruit stands in search of food. To see what he can do, Orwell grabs his rifle and mounts his pony.
Although he is aware that the elephant won't be killed by the rifle, he nevertheless holds out hope that the elephant will be startled by the gunshot. Orwell finds out that the elephant just killed a man by trampling him to the ground—a coolie or native laborer. Sending his pony away, Orwell orders the delivery of an elephant rifle, which would be more efficient against such a large animal. When Orwell goes in search of the elephant, he discovers it calmly munching on some grass and appearing as harmless as a cow.
He then shoots the elephant from a safe distance and is amazed at how long it takes the animal to pass away. At the conclusion of the essay, he admits that the only reason he shot the elephant was to avoid appearing foolish.
ANALYSIS:
There is no doubt that "Shooting an Elephant" is about more than just Orwell killing the elephant; he calls the entire incident "a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had before of the real nature of imperialism - the real motives for which despotic governments act." The surprise is that despotic governments actually care about how their poor subjects perceive them rather than just imposing their iron fist upon them without regard for their opinions.
So, among other things, "Shooting an Elephant" is about how the powerful behave when they are conscious of their audience. It is about how so much of our behavior is determined by what other people will think of us, not by what we want to do or even by what we believe is the right thing to do. Orwell acknowledges that he had spent his entire life trying to avoid being laughed at, and avoiding ridicule or laughter from the Burmese people watching him was one of his main motivations when dealing with the elephant.
To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing – no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.
Not only is this Orwell's psychology, but it is the psychology of every imperial agent. Note how "my whole life" expands to "every white man's life in the East" right away. Orwell continues, "And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh." He then imagines the horrific death he would face if he shot the elephant but missed and was trampled underfoot like the unfortunate coolie the elephant had killed. That is never acceptable. British imperialism is personified in the final phrase's stiff upper lip. Orwell might have been able to handle (as it were) being crushed to death by an elephant, but ridiculed? And what's worse, where the "natives" making fun of you? Not imaginable
And from here, Orwell extrapolates his own experience to think about the colonial experience broadly: The white European may believe he is in control of his colonial subjects, but ironically — even paradoxically — the colonizer forfeits his own freedom when he decides to subjugate and rule another people:
In this instant, I realized that when a white man becomes a tyrant, it is his own freedom that is destroyed. He turns into a hollow posing dummy, the stereotypical image of a sahib. Because it is a requirement of his rule that he spends his life trying to win over the "natives," he is required to fulfill their expectations of him at all times. He grows his face to fit the mask that he wears.
Consequently, the two intriguing paradoxes at the center of "Shooting an Elephant" are: imperial rulers and despots actually care deeply about how their colonized subjects view them (even if they don't care about those subjects), and the one who colonizes loses his own freedom when he takes away the freedom of his colonial subjects because he is forced to play the role of the "sahib" or gentleman, setting an example for the "natives," and, He is the outsider in their country, which clarifies the second paradox, but the first is trickier to understand.
Even this paradox may have an explanation. As Orwell puts it, conscious of the absurdity of the situation, "Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality, I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind." Due to their ethnicity and the fact that they outnumber the lone police officer by thousands to one, the Burmese natives in this scene are the ones who really hold the power. They may have the numbers, but he may have a gun. The strongest elephant gun in the world wouldn't be enough to give him control of the situation because he is performing for a crowd.
The young Orwell gradually becomes aware of the idea of shooting the elephant, and he is helpless to stop it even though he recognizes it to be unfair (when the elephant no longer poses a threat to anyone) and financially wasteful. This inevitability is conveyed by Orwell's deft repetitions. He goes against his own will and instinct, but he still does it as a purely theatrical act.
SHORT ANALYSIS:
"Shooting an Elephant" is an essay written by George Orwell, first published in the literary magazine New Writing in late 1936 and broadcast by the BBC Home Service on 12 October 1948. The essay describes the experience of the English narrator, possibly Orwell himself, called upon to shoot an escaped elephant while working as a police officer in British Burma.
Orwell's story is not about shooting an elephant but about the greater issues of his own feelings of guilt and hypocrisy. The events that he describes are not really about the elephant but about his own inner conflict between what he believes and what he must do. The elephant is simply a symbol of the greater issue at hand.
The story is set in British-controlled Burma during the early 20th century. The narrator, a young Englishman who is not named, is working as a police officer in Moulmein, a town in the country's delta region. He is not particularly happy with his job, which he views as a form of imperialism, and he is constantly made to feel like an outsider by the Burmese people.
One day, he is called upon to deal with an escaped elephant that is causing havoc in the town. The animal has already killed a man, and the narrator knows that he will be forced to kill it. He is not particularly keen on the idea, but he feels that he has no choice.
The story culminates with the narrator shooting the elephant. He does so, not because he wants to, but because he feels that he has no other choice. The act leaves him feeling guilty and hypocritical, as he has always claimed to be opposed to violence.
QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS:
Q1) What was the attitude of the people in lower Burma towards the Europeans?
Ans: The lower Burmans do not have a particularly endearing attitude toward the Europeans, who Orwell names a subdivisional police officer. The common people would spit beetle juice over the dress of the European lady as she walked through the bazaar, but no one had the courage to start a riot. They made fun of the author as well. He was jeered at by the locals but from a safe distance. Standing on street corners, the young Buddhist priest jeered at every European. The worst of all were these. This was unacceptable to the author, but it nonetheless occurred against his expectations. In other words, the people did not have a humanistic attitude at all.
Q2) Why does Orwell say that imperialism is an evil thing?
Ans: Everywhere they ruled, the British government tightened its grip. It was also poorly received in Burma. After coming to terms with the truth, the author turned against the British and developed sympathy for the Burmese. He supported the native people even though he worked for the British government. He cried because of the prisoners' state. They were congregating inside the foul cages. Their expressions were cowed and grey. They were brutally caned while their buttocks were covered in wounds. All of these made Orwell feel guilty and led him to believe that imperialism is obviously evil because it never aimed to advance the nation instead always wanted to use force to repress the common people.
Q3) What were Orwell's two extremes?
Ans: Orwell's love for oppressed people and his loyalty to the government made him vulnerable to two extremes. He despised the empire he served for its ruthlessness, and he was enraged by those who attempted to make his job in the East impossible. One part of him believed that the British Raj would never end and that it would always go against the will of the indigenous people with unbreakable tyranny. His other half always wanted to bayonet the young priest. Though Orwell oscillated between these two extremes, these were natural byproducts of imperialism.
Q4) What did the elephant do?
Ans: When Orwell had just awoken from a nap, he was summoned by phone to control an elephant. On his journey, he learned about the elephant's exploits from ordinary people. They claimed it was a tamed wild elephant that had gone insane. It was chained up, but it broke free the night before. It will take the mahout twelve hours to come and manage it because he went in the wrong direction to search for it. The elephant appeared in town unexpectedly in the morning, but the people had no way of dealing with it because they lacked weapons. It had already destroyed a bamboo hut, killed a cow, and raided and devoured the stock of several fruit shops.
Q5) Why does Orwell say…….. “That is invariably the case in the East?”
Ans: After receiving the information, Orwell and his force arrived in town in search of the elephant. But there was no sign of the beast. Then they began questioning the people about the elephant's whereabouts. However, no one provided any specific information. People were muttering in the distance, but when asked, they remained silent. Some claimed that the elephant had gone in one direction, while others claimed that it had gone in the opposite direction, and still others claimed that they had heard of no elephant at all. Orwell became convinced that the entire story was a sham. However, a cry could be heard in the distance, and Orwell was gradually informed about the elephant.
Q6) How did a black Dravidian coolie die?
Ans: When the author got close to a hut, he noticed a man's body lying in the mud. He was a coolie from Dravidian. He was naked and lifeless. The elephant appeared suddenly around the corner of the hut, caught the man with its trunk, put its foot on his back, and ground him into the earth, according to the people. The soil was soft due to the rainy season. The man was crucified on his stomach, his arms crucified, and his head twisted to one side. His face was smudged, and his eyes were wide open. His expression suggested a death in agony. The beast's foot grasped the man's back skin. The man appeared to be evil.
Q7) Describe the procession scene when Orwell was moving to kill the elephant?
Ans: Orwell moved forward with the rifle in his hand, and the entire population followed. People were ecstatic when they saw the rifle. They were uninterested when the elephant ravaged their homes, but the point had been changed because it was about to be shot. They required its meat. By the way, Orwell became uneasy. But the author had no intention of killing the enormous beast. He was moving like a fool with the rifle on his shoulder. When the author arrived at the designated location, he noticed the elephant tearing up bunches of grass and stuffing them into its mouth.
Q8) Why did the author think of the killing of the elephant as a serious matter?
Ans: The author decided not to kill the elephant the moment he saw it. Killing such an elephant was a serious matter to him. First and foremost, it was a working elephant, and it was comparable to a massive and costly loss of machinery. Furthermore, the animal had taken on the appearance of a cow with a grandmotherly demeanor. The author was in no mood to kill the animal because he was in his forties. He had never done or desired to do this. Once again, the animal's owner was to be considered. The elephant was worth a hundred pounds when it was alive, but when it died, it was only worth five pounds and the tusks. People also claimed that it would be harmless. Considering all these matters, the author took it to be serious to kill the animal.
Q9) How was the author made a puppet in front of the native people?
Ans: The author was being pursued by natives as a creature was about to be shot. They were blocking the road from one end to the other. They were watching him as he performed a magician's trick. People were ecstatic because they were about to witness a novel scene. The author lost his will. The will of thousands of people propelled him forward. He had his gun, but it would be a shame if he didn't shoot the elephant. This is a white man's problem in the East. It was all about his reputation. How could he bring himself down in the eyes of those men, the vast majority of whom insulted him? As a result, he was dragged around by the will of the yellow faces. So, even though Orwell had no intention of killing the elephant, he was determined to do so out of respect for lower-class people.
Q10) What prompted the author to make the decision to kill the elephant?
Ans: Following the yellow-faced people, the author approached the elephant and began to test its behavior. He planned on shooting if he was attacked. Otherwise, he'd wait until the mahout returned. The ground was extremely soft, and one would sink with each step. If the elephant charged and the author didn't notice, he'd be like a toad under a steam roller. He was not afraid, at least not in front of the natives. He was always afraid that if something went wrong, those 2000 Burmans would peruse, capture, trample on, and change him to a corpse like the Indian coolie. He was not in the mood to be a source of amusement to others. So, there was no other alternative. Placing the cartridges into the magazine, he concentrated on a better aim.
Q11) What was the effect of pulling the trigger?
Ans: When the author pulled the trigger, he immediately heard the devilish roar from the crowd rather than the bang. The elephant experienced a mysterious and terrifying transformation. It didn't move or fall, but every line on its body had changed. It appeared afflicted, shrunken, and extremely old. It sagged to its knees after five seconds. The elephant was overcome with exhaustion. When the second round was fired, it did not collapse but climbed to its feet with desperate slowness, its head drooping. When Orwell fired the third time, the elephant's entire body was jerked and it fell, but it fought hard to get back up. Then it collapsed like a huge rock on the ground, its trunk spreading towards the sky like a tree. For the first and only time, it trumpeted. Then it fell to the ground, belly first, towards the author.
Q12) Describe the elephant when it was struggling with death.
Ans: The elephant collapsed after three shots. It was exhaling long rattling gasps in a rhythmic manner. Its massive mound of a side was painfully rising and falling. Its mouth was wide open, and its pinkish throat was visible. Orwell waited a long time for it to die, but it never did. So the author directed the last two shots at its heart. The red velvet-like blood sprang forth, but it was alive. It was dying slowly and with labored breathing. The author imagined that the elephant had arrived in a world where no bullet could harm him any further.
Q13) What was the after-effect of killing the elephant?
Ans: There were endless debates about shooting the elephant. The animal's owner was enraged, but as an Indian, he had no recourse. Aside from that, the author did legal work because a wild elephant, like a wild dog, had to be killed if its owner failed to control it. Europeans had mixed feelings as well. The older men agreed with him, but the younger men thought it was a shameful act to shoot an elephant because killing an elephant is more valuable than killing a coolie. When he learned that a coolie had been killed, later Orwell rejoiced. With enough pretext, he was able to forgive himself.
