In contrasting Russian writer Leo Tolstoy with Kipling, Orwell writes, "Tolstoy lived in a great military empire in which it seemed natural for almost any young man of family to spend a few years in the army, whereas the British Empire was demilitarized to a degree that continental observers found almost incredible. Civilized men do not readily move away from the centers of civilization." Throughout the 19the century, at most 1 percent of the British actually served in the military and this within an empire that spanned the globe. The British government sphere of the national GDP was less than 10 percent which is one third of the United States government share is today. Maritime powers, in particular, tended to be less militaristic then their land based opponents. Kipling writes of Empire and war, even though he never served but as Orwell noted, he did understand the barbarity of war. Orwell quipped that Kipling was "half-civilized" and thus was able to transport himself from the boundary of London and write of the untamed world beyond the English isles. For Kipling, British imperialism spread civilization - bearing the "White man's burden."

While Orwell does not care for Kipling views, he writes of his 19th century opponent, "One reason for Kipling's power as a good bad poet I have already suggested- his sense of responsibility, which made it possible to have a world-view, even though it happened to be a false one." As Kipling writes, "East is East and West is West. The white man' s burden." Kipling believed in the superiority of the English culture and way. He did not see the Imperialism as a sin but a necessity, a view that Orwell rejected.

Of course, today we live in a world in which cultures appears to be colliding. While it is political incorrect to state that certain cultures are indeed inferior, Kipling would disagree. On this score, I would agree with Kipling that indeed that some culture are superior to others. Does anyone really believe that a totalitarian Islamic fundamentalist regime is equivalent to a capitalistic Democratic state? Kipling believed that the British offer many colonies a new way of viewing the world. India today exists as a parliamentary democracy in part because of its British upbringing. Ditto, the United States. One does not need to accept Kipling 19th century colonial attitudes and racism to believe in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon culture when contrasted to its totalitarian opponents.

Gandhi used Anglo-Saxon thoughts and ideas to oppose the British. How could the British truly believe in liberty and freedom if they deny this to the hundred of millions of Indians under their control? Kipling and Gandhi, in some respect, are the same side of the coin. Both understood the strength of English culture but Gandhi understood its weakness more. Which is why his view eventually triumph over Kipling imperialism. Still, there is irony that both men understood that there were aspects of British culture that could be transplanted into Indian society. Now we are having the same debate on whether the same culture can be in part transplanted in an Islamic culture.