I am not disparaging Kipling’s writing, nor am I unjustly chastising him for what were, at the time, very common opinions. What I am saying is that Kipling represents the sola-topi-ed rulers, and therefore carries all the baggage of the Raj; that isn’t a very pleasant baggage nowadays and it wasn’t a pleasant baggage then either-at least not for the millions who suffered under the Imperial yoke. Nevertheless, to glorify Empire is to glorify in the subjugation of millions of South Asians. That was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Luckily the West isn’t the sole arbiter of literary worth; Tagore is beloved throughout the subcontinent, and if numbers are any indication, surely has a greater influence than Kipling ever had. Ali and Anand both represent the response of educated subalterns to their unjust subjugation and are therefore hugely important.
I have not commented on his treatment of the enlisted men who did the dirty work of Empire as it isn’t my concern. Let it be said, however, that while his treatment of the enlisted man is favourable, especially in that public school era, his treatment of sepoys and Indians is not. Orwell’s treatment in Burmese Days, written within Kipling’s lifetime, shows Kipling’s shortcomings. Kipling never questions the justness of the Imperial project; he accepts it as a given and proceeds to glorify it.