Rudyard Kipling's short story "On the City Wall" shows an extremely complex aspect of 19th century British rule over India. The setting is Lahore, where a courtesan of name Lalun hosts a salon in his apartment on the city divide. If you want to know what is happening in the city, Lalun's apartment is the focal point of data and chatter. Two guests mostly included Wali Dad, a local Mohammedan with an English education, and the narrator. The story is conveyed as it appears to the narrator, with holes and gaps filled in later as he discovers more information. Say no to plagiarism Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be forbidden"? Get original essayWali Dad is a powerful symbol of the hybrid Indian of the age: contemptuous of his individual companions while knowing that he will never be fully recognized as an equivalent in the English world. The hatred is shared by Khem Singh, an elderly Sikh who was detained for revolting against the British armed forces, but was recently granted parole in Lahore. Singh's hatred is unique, as he believes that younger generations prefer to collaborate with the Raj rather than fight for their opportunity. Numerous images present the India of the past in relation to the current setting: the "red tombs of the dead emperors beyond the waterway" with the riverside cricket pitch, and the dynamic Khem Singh against a latent Wali Dad (although both end up abandoning themselves to their individual disappointments) to complete two clear sets. Be that as it may, what does Kipling (or the narrator) think of the actual situation? I feel an unpredictable abdication to conquer the heart. He senses the elevation and respect of India's past, but recognizes the advantages of the British running the show. Kipling clearly paints the Captain in an unflattering light, but soon after highlights the potential powder keg of religious distress that the officers effectively mediate. the current situation is very far from what he might want to see, I have a feeling that seeing the absence of the English would be much more disastrous. I thought it was intriguing that two quaint local characters pointed out the stupidity of the benevolence shown by the English. The actors' options seem to be a choice between disappointment and futility. Wali Dad cannot change his identity: he will never be fully recognized in English society nor will he have the trust of his classmates. He has rejected it all, gripped by a temporary religious fervor that makes him sell out to Singh's backstabbers. Khem Singh investigates his alternative options, one which cannot be completed while the other is full of disappointment. The main character who seems fulfilled in the story is Lalun, and his basic purpose. Where, as in "shoot an elephant", Orwell uses the elephant as a representation of his involvement with the institution of colonialism. He writes that the elephant experience gave him knowledge of "the real reasons why despotic governments act." Killing the elephant while delicately eating grass is undoubtedly a demonstration of ferocity, symbolizing the barbarism of expansionism in general. The elephant's insubordination does not legitimize Orwell's decision to kill. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Or perhaps, his frenzy is a side effect of an existence spent in slavery: Orwell makes it clear that “tame elephants are always [chained] when their attack “must” be due.” Likewise, the occasionally ferocious contempt that the English like Orwell.”