Picturing the Indian Tiger: Imperial Iconography in the Nineteenth Century

Abstract

IN THE EMPIRE OF NATURE John M. MacKenzie suggests there were "three animals in India with which the British had a special hunting relationship, the tiger, the elephant and the pig" (179). Of these, the tiger is the one most closely associated with Britain's imperial relationship with India. By the mid nineteenth century, as Joseph Sramek explains, "tigers . . . had become invested with several potent meanings" (659). Several critics including Sramek and Annu Jalais demonstrate how tigers were closely associated with Indian rulers, and, at the same time, with all that was wild and untamed about the subcontinent. Thus "[o]nly by successfully vanquishing tigers would Britons prove their manliness and their fitness to rule over Indians" (Sramek 659). Through close readings of selected tiger images from the second half of the nineteenth century, this paper considers the way tigers were consistently used as visual signifiers of India in a series of stock-in-trade images which depict tiger hunts, white men protecting white women from tigers, and tigers menacing Indians.

The Petroglyphs of Indo-Myanmar Frontier

“…Anthropomorphic figures in Australia have been push back to 40,000 years (Mike, 2020: 149). Picturing the Bengal tiger as a predator to hundreds of white women and children during the 1857 revolt (Crane & Fletcher, 2014) is a colonial presentation of how masculine powers prey on the weak. Lenchonghoi is a beautiful lady who had seven brothers but was kidnapped by an unknown man called Khalvompu (local name) as a very energetic man, (Haokip, 1998: 15), having supernatural power and could transform into a tiger at wish.…”

Twisted Skeins of Women and Wilderness

“…Part of the answer may be attributed to British colonialism, in which native savagery was linked to tigers as a means of establishing their dominion over indigenous populations, as noted by Ralph Crane and Lisa Fletcher (2014): "For the British India the tiger -despite its power and "Royalness" -was regarded as dishonourable while the lion, the symbol of Britain, was regarded as noble" (373). Similar to the distress Derrida experienced with the "bottomless gaze" (Derrida 2008, 12) of his cat, the tiger's gaze, which Britishers innately affiliated with Indians, gave the British a similar experi-…”