Learn Reading with Insight 2 with Free Lessons & Tips

The author uses satire in his story to talk about the indiscriminate killing of tigers. The entire species of tigers had become extinct at the state of Pratibandapuram and that of his wife’s native state by the time the king himself dies. What is pointed in a subtle manner is that these killings are a result of mere whims and fancies. They do not have any logical explanation at the face of the inevitable status of death. Moreover, the silence on the death of tigers itself draws a strong co-relation between the life of the king and that of the ninety-nine tigers killed by him.

Besides, no second thought was ever given while killing the tigers. There is also an implicit suggestion of killings for preserving the vain glory of human in the British officer’s request for a photograph with a dead tiger. It is as if these animals’ existence is at stake for more than one reason and for no fault of their own. The absurdity highlighted in the killings, by the author, also makes the readers wonder if these animals deserve more security than human beings.

[‘Conceit’ means an extremely favourable and high opinion of one’s own abilities and worth, while ‘satire’ refers to the use of irony, humour, exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticize stupidity and vices of people in a particular context or situation.]

The story is a satire on the conceit of those in power. The king is known to be an extremely conceited person right from the beginning. As a ten-day-old infant, he pronounced the words, “Let tigers beware!” By challenging the astrologer’s prediction, he also challenges his death. Moreover, killing seventy tigers within a period of ten years and bringing the entire species close to extinction, marrying for the convenience of killing more tigers, exercising his authority to punish or tax people according to his whims and fancies, flaunting his power and richness in sending about fifty rings to the British officer’s lady or paying a bill of three lakh rupees, having a temper that would make other people lose their job or even life etc., are all part of this conceit. He does nothing for the sake of his people in the capacity of a king. All this has been highlighted in the story using humour, irony and exaggeration.

Death is an inevitable phenomenon associated to life itself. Challenging death on the basis of prediction by astrologers is as good as a wasted effort. Even after the monumental task of killing ninety-nine tigers, the hundredth tiger escaped being shot by the king’s gun. Unaware of this, he dies merely because of a “tiny little wooden tiger” and not by any ferocious living creature like tiger. Thus, the dramatic irony surfaces strongly at the end of the story when the readers realise what the king never does.

Maharaja's minions were servile towards him primarily because of his fury and obstinacy which might result in either losing their jobs for no apparent fault of theirs or facing unjustified punishments. No one dared to take the risk of explaining the consequences of the killings to the king or give him any right suggestion or advice. No one tried to argue any of his decision – be it annihilation of tigers or marrying for the sake of availing further opportunity for tiger-hunt. No one questioned his neglect of duties towards his people or state.  They simply did not wish to interfere and were happy to comply lest they should face the consequences. They merely had to submit to his whims and fancies as they existed purely for that very reason. The simple reasoning was that if they cannot do an assigned job, they did not deserve to be in the job. Even his dewan was asked to resign from his post when he tried to point out the impracticality of doubling the taxes collected from people. All his subordinates lived in a piteous state of constant terror of him so much so that the shopkeeper couldn't communicate the original price of an item, the hunters couldn't inform him about the hundredth tiger being alive and even his dewan had to stealthily arrange for a tiger to be brought from Chennai. Their sincerity to him, if any, was always shown overpowered by the fear of their king.

Yes, there are lots of similarities between the Maharaja's story and the present political order. People are discontented as those in power seem to be indifferent to their welfare and that of the state and ecology. Selfish aims and concerns guide decisions, and mere whims and fancies can change the situation of law and order. Those who try to bring some positive reform may also not be able to do so as they fear losing their jobs or facing other dire consequences. Taxes taken from the public are also constantly misappropriated. Reforms either do not materialise or do so with an extremely slow pace. Yet, the best part is that the real situation is not as bleak as in the story. There are people working for the benefit and welfare of their community and society, and positive changes do happen.

There have been some instances of game hunting in the present times. Even the affluent have been involved in instances that illustrate the callousness of human beings towards wildlife.

Salman Khan – Black Buck poaching case.

Nawab Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi - Antelope case.

(Pointers have been provided for students' reference. It is strongly recommended that students prepare the answer on their own.)