Rikki Tikki Tavi

Content Warning: This section references colonialism and ethnic stereotypes.

Children’s literature often seeks to instruct or to impart a moral lesson, and “Rikki-tikki-tavi” is no exception. At its most basic level, the story is one of good versus evil and of bravery. Despite his small stature, Rikki-tikki-tavi is clearly a hero Kipling hopes readers will pattern themselves on. He even inspires songs similar to those that describe the feats of epic heroes, though Kipling adds comical touches that support the story’s more lighthearted, whimsical tone. In “Darzee’s Chaunt,” Rikki-tikki-tavi receives epithets akin to those that feature in epic poetry—“the valiant,” “the true,” “the ivory-fanged” (19)—but the poem ends before it has truly begun, cut off by Rikki-tikki-tavi himself. Yet even the humor is instructive, supporting the story’s message about Courage as Action: In four stanzas, Darzee has repeatedly announced his intention to tell listeners about Rikki-tikki-tavi but hasn’t gotten around to describing any of Rikki-tikki-tavi’s actions by the time Rikki-tikki-tavi, frustrated with Darzee’s premature celebration, interrupts him.

It is therefore not enough merely to be brave, the story suggests; rather, one must also act quickly and decisively. This is part of what distinguishes Rikki-tikki-tavi from the story’s other characters. Although Rikki-tikki-tavi can strategize when he needs to—e.g., when coming up with his plan to attack Nag—he more commonly leaps into the fray at a moment’s notice. Indeed, the battle-frenzy that overtakes him when confronting a snake, symbolized by his red eyes, seems to leave him with no choice but to act. By contrast, characters like Darzee and Chuchundra dither or cower in moments of crisis. The story still depicts them as mostly “good,” and they do help Rikki-tikki-tavi in their own ways, but their indecision and cowardice make them unfit to be the story’s heroes, in Kipling’s estimation. Nag and Nagaina represent another variation on the theme. Though capable of fast action, their preference is the opposite of Rikki-tikki-tavi’s: They scheme and plot, which the story associates with their duplicity, coldness, and (ultimately) villainy.

Digging deeper, the story also reflects—and upholds, if not unambiguously—the sociohistorical context in which Kipling wrote it: the heyday of British imperialism in India. Indians themselves are virtually absent in the work, perhaps reflecting a belief that the only “real” humans, like Teddy and his family, are white. However, the focus on iconic Indian animals like mongooses and cobras allows Kipling to depict various Indian postures towards British colonialism. Rikki-tikki-tavi is the “ideal” colonial subject. He is eager to embrace British culture, eating whatever the family gives him and at one point showing interest in Teddy’s father’s writing. He is also willing to serve and defend the colonizing power, even against his fellow Indians—the cobras, whose association with Brahma links them with traditional Indian culture, and whose desire to kill or evict Teddy’s family suggests a desire to reclaim their homeland. The story frames this desire as villainous, further undercutting any sympathy for their cause by hinting at the cobras’ cowardice. During his first battle with Rikki-tikki-tavi, Nag recognizes Rikki-tikki’s prowess and responds with fear “at the bottom of his cold heart” (5). The implication is that even the rebels recognize British “superiority” and are consequently fearful of anyone who allies themselves with them.

Nevertheless, the story’s support for colonialism is not entirely uncomplicated. For one, it draws numerous parallels between the cobras and more virtuous characters, like Teddy’s parents and Darzee and his wife. All three sets of parents share the same goal: to safeguard their offspring. Ultimately, the story has no answer for the question Nag poses—why his consumption of a fledgling is any different from Rikki-tikki-tavi’s consumption of an egg—suggesting that the story’s moral boundaries are more porous than they might seem. Furthermore, the story praises Rikki-tikki-tavi for retaining much of his “native” (i.e., mongoose) culture; doing otherwise would be “wrong” in a story so concerned with Family Loyalty and Legacy, so Rikki-tikki-tavi’s assimilation into Teddy’s family is incomplete. In fact, it is precisely because Rikki-tikki-tavi remains a mongoose that he can defeat the cobras, whom Teddy and his family are ill-equipped to confront. This illuminates one of the myths of colonialism: that the colonizing power is inherently superior.

It also points to another tension: The Possibility of “Taming” Nature. The desire to do so is conceptually related to colonialism; colonized cultures are often considered more “primitive” and therefore closer to a natural world that needs subduing and ordering. In “Rikki-tikki-tavi,” the two impulses follow a similar course. Although Rikki-tikki-tavi’s triumph over the cobras defies nature in its most threatening form, he must rely on his natural instincts to secure this victory. The relatively marginal position of the story’s human characters, even in a children’s story, is also telling. Like Darzee and Chuchundra, Teddy and his family are “good” but not, ultimately, heroic.