Kipling's Beast and Man

Kipling’s “Beast and Man in India” points out the misconceptions Europeans hold about India’s treatment of animals. Brits were surprised about the Indian Council’s passage of an act preventing cruelty to animals, because it appeared that Indians were already humane, and that this act was unnecessary. Kipling points out this misconception. He argues that religious tradition in India used to promote compassion towards animals but “so general precepts of mercy for the many shrank into ritual observances for the few.”[1] This is the case because over time, people moved away from religious doctrine. Therefore “we are apt to judge of the results of a creed from the aims of its commandments, which is putting the cart before the horse.”[2]Kipling also argues that this tradition is practiced more by the upper classes than the poor, because they have the freedom and capacity to choose.

I believe that this argument applies to much of the Western world as well. Kipling points out that the Christian doctrine of generosity and poverty is no longer prevalent in the Western world. Today this remains the same. Church attendance is down and people jump to buy the best money can buy whether it is a new Escalade with rims or wintering in St. Bart’s. Just like the modern Hinduism that Kipling describes, Christianity is going through the “process of decay and change.”[3] Moreover, in the West as well it is easier to follow religious decree if you are wealthy. You can afford to give large sums of money away, you can afford to take of work to volunteer etc. The truly poor are not poor because of an obligation to faith.

Church attendance by country.[4]

I really enjoyed Kipling’s argument criticizing Indian religion’s hypocritical love for animals. He points to Hindus “who would die sooner than eat flesh, but who would also rather die than touch or help a dying man of a low caste near his door.”[5] I wonder how someone can claim to be holy and righteous but shun creatures of his own race. Surely cruelty against humans is more pertinent than cruelty against animals. Some may argue differently, that the human is self-sufficient and an animal is not. But under the caste system, humans are not self-sufficient; they are restricted to the class into which they are born. This video provides an insight into the harsh treatment endured by these people. [6] In a sense, they become lower than animals in the minds of the upper classes. Kipling also points out the hypocrisy in the love and reverence for cows in the Hindu religion. These animals receive respect while others such as pigs are hated. A cow cannot stand as an example for animal rights when it is one of a few species that are well treated.

A sacred Hindu cow.[7]

---

[1] Course Packet, 991.

[2] CP, 994.

[3] CP 993.

[4] http://conservationfinance.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/church-attendance.jpg

[5] CP 995.

[6] http://youtube.com/results?search_query=hindu+caste&search_type=

[7] http://www.omkarananda-kamakshi.org/images/nandi%20at%20corners%201.jpg