Abstract: Rudyard Kipling’s Kim (1901) occupies a paradoxical space within colonial literature: it is celebrated for its vivid portrayal of India’s landscapes and cultures, yet simultaneously operates as a vehicle for imperial ideology. This paper interrogates the novel through the lens of Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism, arguing that Kipling deploys recurring Orientalist tropes that render India as exotic, timeless, and spiritually rich but politically dependent. The analysis foregrounds three interrelated dimensions: the representation of India as a picturesque and chaotic Orient; the construction of the Tibetan Lama and the boy Kim as figures embodying both fascination with and control over the native; and the framing of India as a stage for the “Great Game,” where indigenous agency is overshadowed by imperial rivalry. Drawing upon both primary textual evidence and secondary postcolonial scholarship, the paper situates Kim within a discourse that admires Indian diversity but ultimately reaffirms English superiority. The protagonist Kim, a hybrid child navigating both Indian and British identities, becomes the colonial fantasy of mediation and mastery, bridging cultures while reinforcing the paternalistic narrative that India requires governance by the Raj. The findings reveal that Kipling’s narrative strategy is not one of simple propaganda, but of ambivalent Orientalism—simultaneously enchanted by India and invested in its subjugation. This ambivalence makes Kim not only a canonical imperial text but also a rich site for examining the subtle operations of cultural power within colonial discourse.

Keywords:Orientalism, imperialism, Kipling, postcolonialism, representation, hybridity, colonial discourse.