skip to main | skip to sidebar
Showing posts with label Shooting an Elephant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shooting an Elephant. Show all posts

Sahib is a respectful title used by an Indian in addressing an Englishman or other European. It is affixed as a title equivalent to ‘Mr’ to the name of a European. In the essay “Shooting an Elephant” the word ‘sahib’ carries a dual meaning. For the white rulers who are addressed as sahib, it suggests their superiority over the native people. They consider them superior to the natives and act accordingly. 

But the native people use the title in a mocking tone. They use the title to make the ruling class believe that they are in control over the natives. But to the author, the use of the title sahib need not have any real subservience attached to it. He articulates this disparity between respectful title and actual subservience by saying, “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib". By taking on the role of the tyrant, the white man is compelled to keep up this position. 

He must never be seen in an inferior light to the natives. The author does not want to kill the elephant but the wills of the native people force him to kill the animal and fulfil the desires of the natives. It shows that he is forced to kill the elephant to save his face, to avoid mockery of the natives. He also fears that if he does not fulfil the desires of the natives, they may not obey the commands of the ruling class. So, he has got to act that befits a sahib. Thus, in the essay the word ‘sahib’ is not used in deference to the superior white man, but in a mocking sense.

What is the concept of Sahib in Shooting an Elephant?

Green Land | August 27, 2023 | 0 comments

Sahib is a respectful title used by an Indian in addressing an Englishman or other European. It is affixed as a title equivalent to ‘Mr’ to the name of a European. In the essay “Shooting an Elephant” the word ‘sahib’ carries a dual meaning. For the white rulers who are addressed as sahib, it suggests their superiority over the native people. They consider them superior to the natives and act accordingly. 

But the native people use the title in a mocking tone. They use the title to make the ruling class believe that they are in control over the natives. But to the author, the use of the title sahib need not have any real subservience attached to it. He articulates this disparity between respectful title and actual subservience by saying, “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib". By taking on the role of the tyrant, the white man is compelled to keep up this position. 

He must never be seen in an inferior light to the natives. The author does not want to kill the elephant but the wills of the native people force him to kill the animal and fulfil the desires of the natives. It shows that he is forced to kill the elephant to save his face, to avoid mockery of the natives. He also fears that if he does not fulfil the desires of the natives, they may not obey the commands of the ruling class. So, he has got to act that befits a sahib. Thus, in the essay the word ‘sahib’ is not used in deference to the superior white man, but in a mocking sense.

readmore

Narrate Orwell's attitude towards Imperialism and colonial people

If we look back to the history we find that there was always a trend of the powerful nations to seize the independence and sovereignty of weaker nations and to bring it under its yolk. The powerful always practised the method of oppression and suppression and subjugation on the seized country. In the 19th century some of the European nations extended their dominion to the east - to Asia and Africa. Thus 'imperialism', the act of capturing others' nations by force and ruling it subsequently came to establish its firm foot. Imperialism gave birth to two dominant classes - one is oppressor and the other is oppressed; one is the ruling class and the other is the ruled. This political trend in the history arrested the attention of many writers for its distinctive features of oppression and psychological conflict involved.
Imperialism and colonial people


George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is a critique of the political situation of his time. The essay is a critique of imperialism. In the essay he depicts how colonialism treats the colonised people. Orwell gives a realistic picture of imperialism, as he himself was a part of the imperialistic machine through enlistment in the Burmese Police. Imperialism and colonial people.

His stay in Burrna provided him the opportunity to view from a close quarter the by-products of imperialism. Thus "Shooting an Elephant", a masterly creation of Orwell, deals with some facts and details of colonialism in the sub-continent.

The Indian sub-continent came under British colonial rule. As the British subjugated India, a vast change took place in each and every nook of life. Not only the general life and culture were affected, but also the economy, social life even personal lives were vastly influenced by imperialism. The implication of imperialism affected and agonised the native inhabitants of India. The coloniser dominated over the Burmese people; though the Burmese were great in number, they did not dare to go against the oppressor. But it created a lot of animosity and bad feeling between the ruler and the ruled. At the very outset the narrator of the essay tells us about the hatred that the native Burmese harbour about him and with the feeling he used to be greeted - "In Moulmein, in Lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people". The narrator also states that the "anti-European feeling was very bitter ". The natives never spared the slightest opportunity to jeer at the ruling men - "No one had the guts to raise a riot, but if a European woman went through the bazaars alone somebody would probably spit betel juice over her dress. As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so. When a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Buman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter. This happened more than once. In the end the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves. The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street comers and jeer at Europeans." The impact of colonisation was that the narrator as a sub-divisional police officer had to face many unpleasant things. The natives did all these things as an acclamation of their agony and dismay towards Englishmen.

The reaction from the Europeans was in no way pleasant for the natives. If they could capture any of the Burmese doing the aforementioned things, they flogged them by bamboo. The oppression that the ruling class would inflict on the natives is given vivid expression in the essay - "The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long- term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos-all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt." The narrator's dilemma is evident; he was placed in a precarious condition. Thought he harboured a deep detestation for imperialism and termed it "an Evil and always felt sorry for the oppressed, the reality, as he himself belonged to the oppressor class did not spare him from the ill-treatment of the natives.

In the essay Orwell is very critical of colonialism and takes his stand against it. His bitterness against colonialism grew from the realisation that it not only snatches away freedom from the ruled or subjugated but also destroys in a very painful way the freedom of the oppressor. The concept of imperialism rendered the rulers such a powerful but all devouring image that it turned them into puppets at the hands of the natives. The narrator's will and wishes became futile and trivial when faced with the overwhelming crowd.

Narrate Orwell's attitude towards Imperialism and colonial people In his essay "Shooting an Elephant."

Literaturemini | August 15, 2018 | 0 comments

Narrate Orwell's attitude towards Imperialism and colonial people

If we look back to the history we find that there was always a trend of the powerful nations to seize the independence and sovereignty of weaker nations and to bring it under its yolk. The powerful always practised the method of oppression and suppression and subjugation on the seized country. In the 19th century some of the European nations extended their dominion to the east - to Asia and Africa. Thus 'imperialism', the act of capturing others' nations by force and ruling it subsequently came to establish its firm foot. Imperialism gave birth to two dominant classes - one is oppressor and the other is oppressed; one is the ruling class and the other is the ruled. This political trend in the history arrested the attention of many writers for its distinctive features of oppression and psychological conflict involved.
Imperialism and colonial people


George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is a critique of the political situation of his time. The essay is a critique of imperialism. In the essay he depicts how colonialism treats the colonised people. Orwell gives a realistic picture of imperialism, as he himself was a part of the imperialistic machine through enlistment in the Burmese Police. Imperialism and colonial people.

His stay in Burrna provided him the opportunity to view from a close quarter the by-products of imperialism. Thus "Shooting an Elephant", a masterly creation of Orwell, deals with some facts and details of colonialism in the sub-continent.

The Indian sub-continent came under British colonial rule. As the British subjugated India, a vast change took place in each and every nook of life. Not only the general life and culture were affected, but also the economy, social life even personal lives were vastly influenced by imperialism. The implication of imperialism affected and agonised the native inhabitants of India. The coloniser dominated over the Burmese people; though the Burmese were great in number, they did not dare to go against the oppressor. But it created a lot of animosity and bad feeling between the ruler and the ruled. At the very outset the narrator of the essay tells us about the hatred that the native Burmese harbour about him and with the feeling he used to be greeted - "In Moulmein, in Lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people". The narrator also states that the "anti-European feeling was very bitter ". The natives never spared the slightest opportunity to jeer at the ruling men - "No one had the guts to raise a riot, but if a European woman went through the bazaars alone somebody would probably spit betel juice over her dress. As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so. When a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Buman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter. This happened more than once. In the end the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves. The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street comers and jeer at Europeans." The impact of colonisation was that the narrator as a sub-divisional police officer had to face many unpleasant things. The natives did all these things as an acclamation of their agony and dismay towards Englishmen.

The reaction from the Europeans was in no way pleasant for the natives. If they could capture any of the Burmese doing the aforementioned things, they flogged them by bamboo. The oppression that the ruling class would inflict on the natives is given vivid expression in the essay - "The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long- term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos-all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt." The narrator's dilemma is evident; he was placed in a precarious condition. Thought he harboured a deep detestation for imperialism and termed it "an Evil and always felt sorry for the oppressed, the reality, as he himself belonged to the oppressor class did not spare him from the ill-treatment of the natives.

In the essay Orwell is very critical of colonialism and takes his stand against it. His bitterness against colonialism grew from the realisation that it not only snatches away freedom from the ruled or subjugated but also destroys in a very painful way the freedom of the oppressor. The concept of imperialism rendered the rulers such a powerful but all devouring image that it turned them into puppets at the hands of the natives. The narrator's will and wishes became futile and trivial when faced with the overwhelming crowd.
readmore

The psychological complexity of the narrator In the essay "Shooting an Elephant"


In the essay Orwell describes his position as a sub-divisional police omcer in Burma. He was posted in Moulmein in lower Burma. He was hated by a large number of people. There was bitter anti- European feeling in the town. People did not have the courage to start a riot, but they could tease or harass the Europeans or laugh at the narrator. When he was tripped on the football field by some Burmese player the author would get nervous at seeing the yellow faces of the native, especially the young Buddhist priests sneering at him. He was upset by the impertinent behaviours of the Burmese. He was so annoyed that he came to consider 'imperialism' an 'evil' thing and was pondering of leaving his job in the British ruled India. However, his stay in the place as a police officer provided him with the opportunity to view everything, especially the by-products, of colonialism from a close quarter. From the narration in the essay we find that Orwell was theoretically against imperialism and all for the natives. The sight of prisoners and convicts who were cruelly treated oppressed him with an intolerable sense of guilt. On the one hand he hated the 'British Raj' and regarded it as 'an unbreakable tyranny' and on the other hand he had a great contempt for the foolish, jeering natives. Such contradictory feelings, remarks the author are 'normal by-products of imperialism', the very statement is a testimony to the predicament he discovered himself.Orwell's predicament is nicely observed when he approaches to shoot the elephant around which the whole essay enters. He is indecisive whether he should kill the elephant or not. He was at the view that shooting a working elephant was 'comparable to destroy a huge and costly piece of machinery. The elephant did not appear dangerous to him and he was utterly reluctant to shoot the elephant. It was a moment of revelation for him. Standing there with a rifle in his hand before a crowd of natives who virtually leading him to and fro, he for the first time deeply felt the hollowness, the futility of the white men's dominance in the East. He describes his predicament in the following words - "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. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalised figure of a sahib."

The painful realisation that he was not at his will threw the author in a precarious condition. The conventional image of sahib robed him of the freedom of choosing his own actions- "A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things." The vigilance and cautiousness that the author had to maintain constantly to avoid bring laughed at gave his life a nightmarish touch during his stay in Burma. He was caught in such a psychologically complex situation that he was automatically more concerned with the satisfaction of the natives than his own -- "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." The last line of the just quoted part explicitly gives vent to the psychological conflict that the author was undergoing during his stay in the British India.


The oscillation to decide whether to kill the elephant or not further heightens the psychological complexity of the narrator. However, he was soon resolved as his circumstances provided him with no alternatives but to go forward and to kill the animal. In that situation he was so engrossed with the concern of not to appear frightcned. before the crowd of yellow faces that took little consideration of saving his 'own skin'. "The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me perused, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh. That would never do. There was only one altemative. I shoved the cartridge into the magazine and lay down on the road to get a better aim."


In the essay "Shooting an Elephant" Orwell could not grow a liking for the oppressive British colonial rule in India and felt ashamed of being a part of it. He was ever disturbed and vexed by the conflict that kept on going in his mind. The conflict arose from the fact that on the one hand he opposed the dirt things of imperialism and considered it as 'an evil thing' and on the other hand he himself belonged to that oppressor class. He loathed the tyrannous and oppressive rule of a handful British on a large number of native Burmese people. Orwell nourished an anti-imperialistic feeling but he could not give vent to his feelings as he himself was a part of imperialism. His sympathy for the natives and his position among the oppressed rulers made it difficult for him to continue his job as a police officer. The anti-European feeling of the natives aggravated the situation for the author. Ultimately, Orwell quitted his job in Burma and left for England, though not mentioned in the essay.

Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is commonly considered as a critique of colonialism. The author's bitter experiences in Burma as a sub-divisional police officer are at the centre of this essay. The autobiographical essay gives expression to the psychological complication the author suffered. He, like all other white men in the East who belonged to the ruling class, put on a mask bearing the image of 'sahib and thus, against his will' learnt how to conform to the norms of a 'sahib'. The overwhelming thought of not being laughed at by the natives often led the white men to act against their will and better judgement. The concluding part of the essay also alludes to the psychological complexity of the writer - "And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool."

Write a short essay on the psychological complexity of the narrator In the essay "Shooting an Elephant"

Literaturemini | August 15, 2018 | 0 comments

The psychological complexity of the narrator In the essay "Shooting an Elephant"

"Shooting an Elephant" is one of the most arousing and popular essays by George Orwell. Orwell is noted for his autobiographical essays. "Shooting an Elephant" is also an autobiographical essay in which the author describes in realistic and graphic details his own experiences in Burma during the British colonial rule in the sub-continent as a sub-divisional police officer. In the essay the author very skilfully and with much aptness delineates the inner mental conflict and psychological complexity in which he was placed. From the analysis of his mental conflict and psychological complexity we find him in the midst of predicament.
essay on psychological complexity

In the essay Orwell describes his position as a sub-divisional police omcer in Burma. He was posted in Moulmein in lower Burma. He was hated by a large number of people. There was bitter anti- European feeling in the town. People did not have the courage to start a riot, but they could tease or harass the Europeans or laugh at the narrator. When he was tripped on the football field by some Burmese player the author would get nervous at seeing the yellow faces of the native, especially the young Buddhist priests sneering at him. He was upset by the impertinent behaviours of the Burmese. He was so annoyed that he came to consider 'imperialism' an 'evil' thing and was pondering of leaving his job in the British ruled India. However, his stay in the place as a police officer provided him with the opportunity to view everything, especially the by-products, of colonialism from a close quarter. From the narration in the essay we find that Orwell was theoretically against imperialism and all for the natives. The sight of prisoners and convicts who were cruelly treated oppressed him with an intolerable sense of guilt. On the one hand he hated the 'British Raj' and regarded it as 'an unbreakable tyranny' and on the other hand he had a great contempt for the foolish, jeering natives. Such contradictory feelings, remarks the author are 'normal by-products of imperialism', the very statement is a testimony to the predicament he discovered himself.Orwell's predicament is nicely observed when he approaches to shoot the elephant around which the whole essay enters. He is indecisive whether he should kill the elephant or not. He was at the view that shooting a working elephant was 'comparable to destroy a huge and costly piece of machinery. The elephant did not appear dangerous to him and he was utterly reluctant to shoot the elephant. It was a moment of revelation for him. Standing there with a rifle in his hand before a crowd of natives who virtually leading him to and fro, he for the first time deeply felt the hollowness, the futility of the white men's dominance in the East. He describes his predicament in the following words - "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. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalised figure of a sahib."

The painful realisation that he was not at his will threw the author in a precarious condition. The conventional image of sahib robed him of the freedom of choosing his own actions- "A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things." The vigilance and cautiousness that the author had to maintain constantly to avoid bring laughed at gave his life a nightmarish touch during his stay in Burma. He was caught in such a psychologically complex situation that he was automatically more concerned with the satisfaction of the natives than his own -- "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." The last line of the just quoted part explicitly gives vent to the psychological conflict that the author was undergoing during his stay in the British India.


The oscillation to decide whether to kill the elephant or not further heightens the psychological complexity of the narrator. However, he was soon resolved as his circumstances provided him with no alternatives but to go forward and to kill the animal. In that situation he was so engrossed with the concern of not to appear frightcned. before the crowd of yellow faces that took little consideration of saving his 'own skin'. "The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me perused, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh. That would never do. There was only one altemative. I shoved the cartridge into the magazine and lay down on the road to get a better aim."


In the essay "Shooting an Elephant" Orwell could not grow a liking for the oppressive British colonial rule in India and felt ashamed of being a part of it. He was ever disturbed and vexed by the conflict that kept on going in his mind. The conflict arose from the fact that on the one hand he opposed the dirt things of imperialism and considered it as 'an evil thing' and on the other hand he himself belonged to that oppressor class. He loathed the tyrannous and oppressive rule of a handful British on a large number of native Burmese people. Orwell nourished an anti-imperialistic feeling but he could not give vent to his feelings as he himself was a part of imperialism. His sympathy for the natives and his position among the oppressed rulers made it difficult for him to continue his job as a police officer. The anti-European feeling of the natives aggravated the situation for the author. Ultimately, Orwell quitted his job in Burma and left for England, though not mentioned in the essay.

Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is commonly considered as a critique of colonialism. The author's bitter experiences in Burma as a sub-divisional police officer are at the centre of this essay. The autobiographical essay gives expression to the psychological complication the author suffered. He, like all other white men in the East who belonged to the ruling class, put on a mask bearing the image of 'sahib and thus, against his will' learnt how to conform to the norms of a 'sahib'. The overwhelming thought of not being laughed at by the natives often led the white men to act against their will and better judgement. The concluding part of the essay also alludes to the psychological complexity of the writer - "And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool."
readmore

The ironies in the essay "Shooting an Elephant"

George Orwell is one of the most renowned practitioners of English prose in the 20th century whose aim is not to be a purveyor of fine writing but to tum political writing into a new art. To him, political writing is primarily concerned with moral issues, which we find in one of his most celebrated essays "Shooting an Elephant", not with dogma and doctrines. The essay is his attempt to draw upon his five-year policeman experience in a lower district of Burma.


To find out the ironies in the essay we must know what an irony is. An irony is commonly and generally defined as the incongruity between expectations and achievements. We also find irony in the situation if a person has to go against his will. The situation becomes ironic when a person has to do something being compelled by the situation. The entire plot of the event or happenings in the essay "Shooting an Elephant" is based on the irony of the writer's fate and his feelings.


Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is based on the experience the author gathered during his stay in lower Burma as a sub-divisional police officer. His very occupation posed to be fatally ironic for the writer. We must see him first as a writer and then as a police officer. As a writer he definitely possessed a developed mind, a different outlook and a strong sensitiveness in any situation. A human personality was within him. This greatly differentiates him from the other police officers. Later Orwell dismissed his five years stay in Burma as "Five boring years within the sound of bugles." Even he becomes a dishwasher in Paris and tramp in London in order to atone his being a policeman.

The second irony is that though he did not like his job, he had to carry out this responsibility. Christopher Hollis, a fellow Etonian, remembers when he visited him in 1925, 'he was at pains to be the imperial policeman. When Orwell tried to explain what kind of 'dirty work of empire', made him guilty, he listed, the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the cowed faces of long-term convicts and the scarred buttocks of men who have been flogged with bamboos'. His hopeless state of mind reveals itself when he says, "But I had nothing in perspective. I was you0png and ill-educated."

Third irony is that he could feel the pathos, the dilemma and the evil of the imperialism practised in that part of the world, and yet he betrayed or rather forcefully ignored the feelings of bitter outrage at this role enforced on him as a representatives of imperialism. On the one side is his sympathy for the victims of imperialism and on the other hand his obligation to fulfil the responsibilities requisite of his service as a police officer. The irony lies in his being a split into two personalities. In his own voice, "I did not even know that the British Empire is dying, still less did I know that it is a great deal better than the younger empires that are going to supplant it. All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saccula sacculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts." But he clarified his position by stating that feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism."

The irony is embedded in the very nature of imperialism. The irony lies in the author's perception and his realisation that how futile the power of imperialism is. As imperialism renders a white man the image of a conventional figure of sahib, he forced by the circumstances wears a mask and starts acting to conform to that mask that he dons. Imperialism snatches away from a white man more that it bestows. It takes away the precious jewel of freedom. The author states in a very direct language, "I perceived in that moment that when a white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalised figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives" and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him." The irony is painful when we understand that in spite of being placed in the top, a white man cannot follow his will and better judgement: though apparently placed in the position of a ruler, but in reality the ruled are in the driving seat; it is the ruled - the natives - who control the situation though unconsciously. This also heightens the sense of irony.

The crux of the irony in the essay comes when the event reaches its climax, when the police officer is out there with a rifle in his hand to kill the elephant. Orwell describes his own position in the following words - "and suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly. And it was at that moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. 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." Because every white man's life in the East was 'one long struggle not to be laughed at', the narrator, despite his reluctance. could not retreat from a situation when two thousand people are at his heels So the whole situation left the narrator with 'only one alternative': his judgement has little value in this regard; his will power hardly has any significance; he is now circumstance-bound. Though he considers that the killing of the elephant would be a 'murder' and a great economic loss, he had to kill the animal only not to be laughed later and not to lose his face of a 'sahib'.

Find out the ironies in the essay "Shooting an Elephant".

Literaturemini | August 15, 2018 | 0 comments

The ironies in the essay "Shooting an Elephant"

George Orwell is one of the most renowned practitioners of English prose in the 20th century whose aim is not to be a purveyor of fine writing but to tum political writing into a new art. To him, political writing is primarily concerned with moral issues, which we find in one of his most celebrated essays "Shooting an Elephant", not with dogma and doctrines. The essay is his attempt to draw upon his five-year policeman experience in a lower district of Burma.


To find out the ironies in the essay we must know what an irony is. An irony is commonly and generally defined as the incongruity between expectations and achievements. We also find irony in the situation if a person has to go against his will. The situation becomes ironic when a person has to do something being compelled by the situation. The entire plot of the event or happenings in the essay "Shooting an Elephant" is based on the irony of the writer's fate and his feelings.


Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is based on the experience the author gathered during his stay in lower Burma as a sub-divisional police officer. His very occupation posed to be fatally ironic for the writer. We must see him first as a writer and then as a police officer. As a writer he definitely possessed a developed mind, a different outlook and a strong sensitiveness in any situation. A human personality was within him. This greatly differentiates him from the other police officers. Later Orwell dismissed his five years stay in Burma as "Five boring years within the sound of bugles." Even he becomes a dishwasher in Paris and tramp in London in order to atone his being a policeman.

The second irony is that though he did not like his job, he had to carry out this responsibility. Christopher Hollis, a fellow Etonian, remembers when he visited him in 1925, 'he was at pains to be the imperial policeman. When Orwell tried to explain what kind of 'dirty work of empire', made him guilty, he listed, the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the cowed faces of long-term convicts and the scarred buttocks of men who have been flogged with bamboos'. His hopeless state of mind reveals itself when he says, "But I had nothing in perspective. I was you0png and ill-educated."

Third irony is that he could feel the pathos, the dilemma and the evil of the imperialism practised in that part of the world, and yet he betrayed or rather forcefully ignored the feelings of bitter outrage at this role enforced on him as a representatives of imperialism. On the one side is his sympathy for the victims of imperialism and on the other hand his obligation to fulfil the responsibilities requisite of his service as a police officer. The irony lies in his being a split into two personalities. In his own voice, "I did not even know that the British Empire is dying, still less did I know that it is a great deal better than the younger empires that are going to supplant it. All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saccula sacculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts." But he clarified his position by stating that feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism."

The irony is embedded in the very nature of imperialism. The irony lies in the author's perception and his realisation that how futile the power of imperialism is. As imperialism renders a white man the image of a conventional figure of sahib, he forced by the circumstances wears a mask and starts acting to conform to that mask that he dons. Imperialism snatches away from a white man more that it bestows. It takes away the precious jewel of freedom. The author states in a very direct language, "I perceived in that moment that when a white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalised figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives" and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him." The irony is painful when we understand that in spite of being placed in the top, a white man cannot follow his will and better judgement: though apparently placed in the position of a ruler, but in reality the ruled are in the driving seat; it is the ruled - the natives - who control the situation though unconsciously. This also heightens the sense of irony.

The crux of the irony in the essay comes when the event reaches its climax, when the police officer is out there with a rifle in his hand to kill the elephant. Orwell describes his own position in the following words - "and suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly. And it was at that moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. 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." Because every white man's life in the East was 'one long struggle not to be laughed at', the narrator, despite his reluctance. could not retreat from a situation when two thousand people are at his heels So the whole situation left the narrator with 'only one alternative': his judgement has little value in this regard; his will power hardly has any significance; he is now circumstance-bound. Though he considers that the killing of the elephant would be a 'murder' and a great economic loss, he had to kill the animal only not to be laughed later and not to lose his face of a 'sahib'.
readmore

The narrator in the essay "Shooting an Elephant."


The narrator in the essay 'Shooting an Elephant' narrates the events in first person point of view. It is the narrator's views on imperialism that we come across in the essay. Though as an autobiographical essay it narrates one apparently simple event in the life of the author during his service in Lower Burma as a police officer, the main focus of the essay is to throw light on the evil side of imperialism. He wrote the essay much later than he experienced his life as an officer. Thus we see two Orwells in this essay- one Orwell who experienced the event and another Orwell who later thought about it and wrote the essay.

From the very outset the narrator in the essay is in a precarious state because of his being split in two personalities. On the one side is his strong detestation for imperialistic rule, of which he himself is a part, as it destroyed, in his view, the moral balance between the ruler and the ruled and on the other side his sympathy for the victims of imperialism. The narrator, at the beginning young and naive, constantly met with perplexing and upsetting' happenings. He hated his job 'more bitterly than I can perhaps make clear, because it allowed him to view the evil aspects of imperialism from a close quarter. The narrator describes his precarious state in the following words -"All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saccula sacculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts." The psychological conflict within the narrator is quite obvious in the statement.

The narrator, as he belonged to the white man community and more importantly to the ruling class or oppressors, was immediately endowed with the image of the conventionalised figure of a 'sahib'. As a 'sahib' belonging to the ruling class he dons a 'mask' and starts conducting in a way which befits his mask without being least bothered by his will power or judgement. It is the mask that gets the upper hand and poses a guiding factor in any white man's life in the East. His duty to his job and country override his sense of individual conscience and morality. He must become someone he is not. His public self and his private self are at odds with one another. It is the hollow existence that a white man adopts in the imperialistic rule. Orwell sums up the whole situation in one sentence "And my whole life, every white man's life in the East, was a long struggle not to be laughed at."

The essay depicts the execution of a tame animal. The whole essay centres on the trifling event of killing of an elephant, which has allegedly gone 'must'. Though apparently an insignificant event, it is of paramount importance so far the narrator is concerned as it furnished the narrator with a clear view and understanding of imperialism. In his own words - "It was a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism-the real motives for which despotic governments act." Orwell is informed that an elephant has gone mad and is causing damage to public life and properties. He comes out with a rifle to investigate into the matter faces the greatest dilemma in his life. News spread all around and people gathered on the scene in the hope of something spectacular. Standing before a crowd of yellow faces of about two thousand natives Orwell realises the hollowness of the white man's dominance in the East "I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. 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. I perceived in this moment that when the white man tums tyrant it is his own freedom that he  destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalised figure of a sahib." As every white man in the East was destined to impress the natives, Orwell decided, as he felt he was left with no altematives, against his better judgement that it would a 'murder' to kill an elephant and a great economic loss, to kill the elephant. .He eventually kills the beast as he finds it impossible to step down from the position he has marched upto. His mind was engrossed not with the thought of saving his skin but with what the crowd expected of him.

The narrator does not say much about his life, his education or his upbringings. In the essay his focus is only on his stay in Lower Burma as a police officer. He is concerned with the experiences that he gathered there. In the essay we come across two Orwells - the young Orwell who is experiencing the events and the old and experienced Orwell who is writing now about his experiences. The later Orwell no more is a part of the imperialistic tyranny. He now gives vent to his feelings and thought freely. The old Orwell now says without the least hesitation that the act, which he felt compelled by giving in to the pressure created by the yellow faces behind him, was legally justified but morally reprehensible. He found his legal ground on the fact that the coolie, injured by the attack of the elephant, later died. The old Orwell is painfully honest in his confession - "And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool."

Orwell justified his action to the rest of the world, but he failed to justify it to himself. He felt the moral qualms of his conscience. This is why the old Orwell is awfully honest in his confession at the end of the essay. It is this cool analysis from the part of the old Orwell that differentiates him from the young Orwell who, during his stay in Burma like all other white men part of colonial machinery, grew in his awareness of how others perceived them and the degree to which they surrender or succumb to the expectations of others. Everything he did in Burma was designed to prevent him from being laughed at and humiliated by the natives. It would be pertinent to mention here the fact that Orwell was only in his 20s and was under severe emotional pressure from all the sides. Ultimately this hardship led him to resign from his post later.

Comment on the narrator in the essay "Shooting an Elephant."

Literaturemini | August 14, 2018 | 1comments

The narrator in the essay "Shooting an Elephant."

George Orwell was a controversial writer who produced a wealth of fictional and non-fictional works which have provoked numerous and diverse critical responses. In "Shooting an Elephant" Orwell's identity as a writer would come into sharp focus. It is one of his best and subsequently one of his most famous essays. "Shooting an Elephant", one of Orwell's most celebrated essays, describes the execution of a tame beast, which has run must' and Orwell's simultaneous realisation of "the hollowness, the futility of the white men's dominion in the East". This autobiographical essay has its distinctive features as the narrator here dextrously blends narration with story to bring his ideas home.
narrator in essay shooting an elephant

The narrator in the essay 'Shooting an Elephant' narrates the events in first person point of view. It is the narrator's views on imperialism that we come across in the essay. Though as an autobiographical essay it narrates one apparently simple event in the life of the author during his service in Lower Burma as a police officer, the main focus of the essay is to throw light on the evil side of imperialism. He wrote the essay much later than he experienced his life as an officer. Thus we see two Orwells in this essay- one Orwell who experienced the event and another Orwell who later thought about it and wrote the essay.

From the very outset the narrator in the essay is in a precarious state because of his being split in two personalities. On the one side is his strong detestation for imperialistic rule, of which he himself is a part, as it destroyed, in his view, the moral balance between the ruler and the ruled and on the other side his sympathy for the victims of imperialism. The narrator, at the beginning young and naive, constantly met with perplexing and upsetting' happenings. He hated his job 'more bitterly than I can perhaps make clear, because it allowed him to view the evil aspects of imperialism from a close quarter. The narrator describes his precarious state in the following words -"All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saccula sacculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts." The psychological conflict within the narrator is quite obvious in the statement.

The narrator, as he belonged to the white man community and more importantly to the ruling class or oppressors, was immediately endowed with the image of the conventionalised figure of a 'sahib'. As a 'sahib' belonging to the ruling class he dons a 'mask' and starts conducting in a way which befits his mask without being least bothered by his will power or judgement. It is the mask that gets the upper hand and poses a guiding factor in any white man's life in the East. His duty to his job and country override his sense of individual conscience and morality. He must become someone he is not. His public self and his private self are at odds with one another. It is the hollow existence that a white man adopts in the imperialistic rule. Orwell sums up the whole situation in one sentence "And my whole life, every white man's life in the East, was a long struggle not to be laughed at."

The essay depicts the execution of a tame animal. The whole essay centres on the trifling event of killing of an elephant, which has allegedly gone 'must'. Though apparently an insignificant event, it is of paramount importance so far the narrator is concerned as it furnished the narrator with a clear view and understanding of imperialism. In his own words - "It was a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism-the real motives for which despotic governments act." Orwell is informed that an elephant has gone mad and is causing damage to public life and properties. He comes out with a rifle to investigate into the matter faces the greatest dilemma in his life. News spread all around and people gathered on the scene in the hope of something spectacular. Standing before a crowd of yellow faces of about two thousand natives Orwell realises the hollowness of the white man's dominance in the East "I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. 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. I perceived in this moment that when the white man tums tyrant it is his own freedom that he  destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalised figure of a sahib." As every white man in the East was destined to impress the natives, Orwell decided, as he felt he was left with no altematives, against his better judgement that it would a 'murder' to kill an elephant and a great economic loss, to kill the elephant. .He eventually kills the beast as he finds it impossible to step down from the position he has marched upto. His mind was engrossed not with the thought of saving his skin but with what the crowd expected of him.

The narrator does not say much about his life, his education or his upbringings. In the essay his focus is only on his stay in Lower Burma as a police officer. He is concerned with the experiences that he gathered there. In the essay we come across two Orwells - the young Orwell who is experiencing the events and the old and experienced Orwell who is writing now about his experiences. The later Orwell no more is a part of the imperialistic tyranny. He now gives vent to his feelings and thought freely. The old Orwell now says without the least hesitation that the act, which he felt compelled by giving in to the pressure created by the yellow faces behind him, was legally justified but morally reprehensible. He found his legal ground on the fact that the coolie, injured by the attack of the elephant, later died. The old Orwell is painfully honest in his confession - "And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool."

Orwell justified his action to the rest of the world, but he failed to justify it to himself. He felt the moral qualms of his conscience. This is why the old Orwell is awfully honest in his confession at the end of the essay. It is this cool analysis from the part of the old Orwell that differentiates him from the young Orwell who, during his stay in Burma like all other white men part of colonial machinery, grew in his awareness of how others perceived them and the degree to which they surrender or succumb to the expectations of others. Everything he did in Burma was designed to prevent him from being laughed at and humiliated by the natives. It would be pertinent to mention here the fact that Orwell was only in his 20s and was under severe emotional pressure from all the sides. Ultimately this hardship led him to resign from his post later.
readmore

The significance of the elephant episode in the essay "Shooting an Elephant."

"One day something happened which in a roundabout way was enlightening. It was 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 incident described in the essay took place at Moulmein in lower Burma, where he was for a time sub-divisional police officer. The crux of the story is described in the middle of the essay. A tame elephant has escaped from its housekeeper and has run amok causing much damage and killing livestock. As a police officer, Orwell is requested to deal with the situation. On arriving at the locality in question he finds that the elephant has now calmed down and is browsing contentedly in a field. Since the animal now appears to be harmless and Innocuous, he realises that although he is armed with a rifle it would be wrong to shoot it. The elephant has now clearly recovered form its attack of madness and appears to be as harmless as a cow. However, a large crowd of Burmese has gathered round, confidently expecting the beast to be shot. At this moment he senses that whether he wishes it or not he will have to do what the crowd expects to him; failure to do so would result in intolerable humiliation. The story thus becomes a powerful parable of the emptiness of imperial domination. Much against his will, for he feels that it would be a 'murder' to kill a tame elephant, which again has much economic value to its possessor, he proceeds to shoot the elephant. The animal takes a long time to die even though he has aimed at the brain and heart. It's tortured gasping in its death agonies become intolerable and at last the narrator can stand it no longer. He leaves the scene abandoning the elephant to the natives who will strip the body for the meat and tusks.

Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is an autobiographical essay and it is commonly acknowledged as a critique of colonialism. In "Shooting an Elephant" Orwell combines his unwillingness to shoot the elephant and his realisation that "every white man's life in the East was one struggle not to be laughed at," with an epitome of the position of those who ruled the Raj. Thus the master becomes the servant as fearing he might be laughed at, he feels constrained to shoot the elephant. The narrator leams the great truths about the nature of imperialism when he, with a rifle in his hand and a great crowd of yellow native faces at his heels and with a clear sense of what is expected of him, is pondering seriously about his next step. He is awakened to the very nature of imperialism and he says-- "And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. 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. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turms tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalised figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives" and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him." It is at that moment that the narrator learns that any white man belonging to the imperialistic machinery dons a 'mask' and he starts acting conforming to the norms of the mask that he almost involuntarily and unconsciously wears. He generalises the common situation of all white men in the East by saying that "And my whole life, every white man's life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at."

Orwell eventually gives in to the psychological pressure created by the circumstances, He decides to act like a 'sahib' for it is not befitting for a 'sahib' to come all this way with a rifle in hand and then retreat without doing anything. He feels that because of his position in the East that he is virtually left with one option, that of killing the elephant even against his better judgement and will. The narrator describes his position -"There was only one altemative. I shoved the cartridge into the magazine and lay down on the road to get a better aim." 

 The account of the great beast's slow, agonising end, protracted over a half hour, is much more than belletrist description. At the last shot. the elephant "looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old"..... "An enormous senility seemed to have settled upon him"........ "One could have imagined him a thousand years old," this is wonderfully sensitive but also a perfect anticipation of the last throes of the Raj itself. The elephant's eventual collapse is like a natural disaster, as earthquake: "down he came, his belly toward me, with a crash that seemed to shake the ground even where I lay." By the aftermoon the Burmans had stripped the elephant's body

almost of the bones, a forecast of the future for many of the former European colonies. The essays final sentence is perfect as Orwell writes: "I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking fool." The Old Orwell, now being no longer under the pressure, blatantly admits the fact that he killed the animal, which had much economic value and which appeared to him as gentle as a cow, not that it might turn destructive, but solely to avoid being laughed at. His confession at the fag end of the essay is painfully honest. 

All of Orwell's writings pose social and political questions of his time, most of them quite direct. In the essay "Shooting an Elephant" questions are raised about the outcome of imperialism. Orwell is overtly against colonialism in the essay. In this essay George Orwell describes the shooting of an elephant in a realistic and graphic detail. The local Burmese were very glad at the shooting of the elephant. They took it as a bit of fun. They hailed it as a brave act on the part of the sahib. Such type of real and graphic picture is hardly seen in literature. George Orwell has given us a vivid expression of his attitude towards imperialism from his own experience in the renowned essay "Shooting an Elephant".

 In "Shooting an Elephant" the author's intention is quite evident. He wants his audience to feel that imperialism is an evil thing not for the oppressed only but for the rulers too. Orwell's rendering of a magnified magnitude to a trifle event of shooting an elephant, which allegedly went 'must', is superbly brilliant and deserves our praise and appreciation.

Discuss the significance of the elephant episode in the essay "Shooting an Elephant."

Literaturemini | August 13, 2018 | 0 comments

The significance of the elephant episode in the essay "Shooting an Elephant."

"One day something happened which in a roundabout way was enlightening. It was 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."


"Shooting an Elephant", one of Orwell's most celebrated and significance of the elephant episode essays, describes the execution of a tame. beast, which has run 'must' and Orwell's simultaneous realisation of "the hollowness, the futility of the white men's dominion in the East". The whole essay centres on an otherwise apparently trifle event of killing a tame elephant, but this 'tiny incident' threw a flood of light on the real nature of colonial government in the East - how it functioned, what it produced and how it destroyed the moral balance between the ruler and the ruled.
significance of the elephant episode

The incident described in the essay took place at Moulmein in lower Burma, where he was for a time sub-divisional police officer. The crux of the story is described in the middle of the essay. A tame elephant has escaped from its housekeeper and has run amok causing much damage and killing livestock. As a police officer, Orwell is requested to deal with the situation. On arriving at the locality in question he finds that the elephant has now calmed down and is browsing contentedly in a field. Since the animal now appears to be harmless and Innocuous, he realises that although he is armed with a rifle it would be wrong to shoot it. The elephant has now clearly recovered form its attack of madness and appears to be as harmless as a cow. However, a large crowd of Burmese has gathered round, confidently expecting the beast to be shot. At this moment he senses that whether he wishes it or not he will have to do what the crowd expects to him; failure to do so would result in intolerable humiliation. The story thus becomes a powerful parable of the emptiness of imperial domination. Much against his will, for he feels that it would be a 'murder' to kill a tame elephant, which again has much economic value to its possessor, he proceeds to shoot the elephant. The animal takes a long time to die even though he has aimed at the brain and heart. It's tortured gasping in its death agonies become intolerable and at last the narrator can stand it no longer. He leaves the scene abandoning the elephant to the natives who will strip the body for the meat and tusks.

Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is an autobiographical essay and it is commonly acknowledged as a critique of colonialism. In "Shooting an Elephant" Orwell combines his unwillingness to shoot the elephant and his realisation that "every white man's life in the East was one struggle not to be laughed at," with an epitome of the position of those who ruled the Raj. Thus the master becomes the servant as fearing he might be laughed at, he feels constrained to shoot the elephant. The narrator leams the great truths about the nature of imperialism when he, with a rifle in his hand and a great crowd of yellow native faces at his heels and with a clear sense of what is expected of him, is pondering seriously about his next step. He is awakened to the very nature of imperialism and he says-- "And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. 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. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turms tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalised figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives" and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him." It is at that moment that the narrator learns that any white man belonging to the imperialistic machinery dons a 'mask' and he starts acting conforming to the norms of the mask that he almost involuntarily and unconsciously wears. He generalises the common situation of all white men in the East by saying that "And my whole life, every white man's life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at."

Orwell eventually gives in to the psychological pressure created by the circumstances, He decides to act like a 'sahib' for it is not befitting for a 'sahib' to come all this way with a rifle in hand and then retreat without doing anything. He feels that because of his position in the East that he is virtually left with one option, that of killing the elephant even against his better judgement and will. The narrator describes his position -"There was only one altemative. I shoved the cartridge into the magazine and lay down on the road to get a better aim." 

 The account of the great beast's slow, agonising end, protracted over a half hour, is much more than belletrist description. At the last shot. the elephant "looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old"..... "An enormous senility seemed to have settled upon him"........ "One could have imagined him a thousand years old," this is wonderfully sensitive but also a perfect anticipation of the last throes of the Raj itself. The elephant's eventual collapse is like a natural disaster, as earthquake: "down he came, his belly toward me, with a crash that seemed to shake the ground even where I lay." By the aftermoon the Burmans had stripped the elephant's body

almost of the bones, a forecast of the future for many of the former European colonies. The essays final sentence is perfect as Orwell writes: "I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking fool." The Old Orwell, now being no longer under the pressure, blatantly admits the fact that he killed the animal, which had much economic value and which appeared to him as gentle as a cow, not that it might turn destructive, but solely to avoid being laughed at. His confession at the fag end of the essay is painfully honest. 

All of Orwell's writings pose social and political questions of his time, most of them quite direct. In the essay "Shooting an Elephant" questions are raised about the outcome of imperialism. Orwell is overtly against colonialism in the essay. In this essay George Orwell describes the shooting of an elephant in a realistic and graphic detail. The local Burmese were very glad at the shooting of the elephant. They took it as a bit of fun. They hailed it as a brave act on the part of the sahib. Such type of real and graphic picture is hardly seen in literature. George Orwell has given us a vivid expression of his attitude towards imperialism from his own experience in the renowned essay "Shooting an Elephant".

 In "Shooting an Elephant" the author's intention is quite evident. He wants his audience to feel that imperialism is an evil thing not for the oppressed only but for the rulers too. Orwell's rendering of a magnified magnitude to a trifle event of shooting an elephant, which allegedly went 'must', is superbly brilliant and deserves our praise and appreciation.
readmore
 
Back To Top