 |
| George Orwell [1903-1950] |
We had an anthology of classical essays as part of our
undergrad English course. Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell was one
of the essays. The horror of political hegemony is the core theme of the essay.
Orwell was a subdivisional police
officer of the British Empire in Burma (today Myanmar) when he was forced to
shoot an elephant. The elephant had gone musth (an Urdu term for the temporary
insanity of male elephants when they are in need of a female) and Orwell was
asked to control the commotion created by the giant creature. By the time
Orwell reached with his gun, the elephant had become normal. Yet Orwell shot
it. The first bullet stunned the animal, the second made him waver, and Orwell
had to empty the entire magazine into the elephant’s body in order to put an
end to its mammoth suffering.
“He was dying,” writes Orwell, “very
slowly and in great agony, but in some world remote from me where not even a
bullet could damage him further…. It seemed dreadful to see the great beast
lying there, powerless to move and yet powerless to die” [emphasis
added].
Orwell employs this tragic experience
of his to examine the nature of political hegemony. “I had done it solely to
avoid looking a fool,” his essay concludes. Political domination is often as
hollow as that. Certain leaders do certain things merely to avoid looking like
a fool.
When a man turns a dictator, it is his
own freedom that he destroys. That is one of the arguments in the essay. The authoritarian
leader rouses up all sorts of expectations in his followers and then he has to
do things against his own conscience and convictions in order to fulfil popular
expectations. Power, when it exceeds certain limits, has to pay a moral cost.
Orwell was against imperialism, but
he had to act as its enforcer because of his job. He kills the elephant not because
it is right but because the huge crowd around him expected it. The killing was
going to be their entertainment. And then the elephant was going to be their
food. Orwell killed the “beast” merely out of the tyranny of conformity.
Orwell’s experience happened a
century back. But the core message of his essay is still relevant.
Orwell’s crowd represents collective
expectation. It was a faceless force demanding conformity. The majoritarian
sentiment in India today often behaves just like that Burmese crowd portrayed
by Orwell. It imagines itself – with all the support of the government – as the
custodians of the country’s culture, morality, and even gods. And then it makes
demands on the authority. And the authority does things merely to win the
applause of the crowd. What is right is disregarded; what is popular is
performed.
The British Empire, though seemingly
powerful, was internally weak, sustained by fear and pretence. How many
authoritarian governments today behave in the same way? They display strength
through control – over media, education, and political discourse. Orwell would
say that it betrays deep insecurity. Like Orwell’s empire, some of our present
governments, which claim to be democratic, hide moral uncertainty and fear of
dissent beneath loud displays of patriotism and religious pride.
Authoritarianism of any kind is a
threat to many human values and ideals. The supposed Master ends up as a slave
of public expectations. The people are already mere slaves. Authoritarianism,
Orwell suggests, corrupts both the Master and the citizens: the moral integrity
of both.
PS. This post is a part
of ‘Real and Rhythm Blog Hop’ hosted by Manali
Desai and Sukaina
Majeed under #EveryConversationMatters blog hop
series.
Every conversation matters. And a Thought Leader'd task is to be-come the fool, who counters the collective and conformative, in my language, co-opting and co-opted surge for entertainment, the consumeristic aspiration. I am at PARA ( People's Action for Rural Awakening), our Provincial Centre for Social Action, which is undergoing a rejuvenation, with the re-entry of Fr Thomas Pallithanam, the founder-direector, as Rector now. Come as part of the panel, which is going to interview ParskalaPrabhakar, the Public Intellectual. As part of the processes of a two-dsy animation of the young priests the Province, who are sll too Collective and Confirmed!
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear about such intellectual activities for priests. PP must be an asset there.
DeleteConformed
ReplyDeleteBut do dictators have morals and do they ever think they are doing against their own will, Their conviction in what they are doing is right overrules all else.
ReplyDeleteHari Om
ReplyDeleteJust recently the Empire podcast did a series on Orwell and there was good discussion on exactly your points. The interesting question of whether he was entirely prescient, or whether the power base sought to fulfil his vision was mooted... Either way, it's a mess. YAM xx
Your reflection on internal struggle — caught between the expectations of others and own moral unease made me think about what it takes to act (or not act) when all eyes are on you.
ReplyDelete