For the Law of the Jungle is not simply a Darwinian “survival of the fittest,” but rather a complex set of precepts by which a society regulates its members. Kipling uses nature metaphors to describe the Law, suggesting that it simply grows in the jungle, like a plant: “As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back—/ For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack” (p. 193). The Law clearly “girdles” the pack, and as the stories show, it links together all the animals of the jungle. It seems that the Law compels the creatures to act in consort, like a single animal. In fact, the poem or song in which it is described, “The Law of the Jungle,” concludes with an image of the Law as a single beast. These lines also serve as an epigraph for The Second Jungle Book: “Now these are the Laws of the Jungle, and many and mighty are they; / But the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is—Obey!” (p. 172). For Kipling, the central precept of this law, which establishes and maintains the social order, is submission.

Law is specifically contrasted with savagery in the story with which Kipling concludes the first Jungle Book, “Her Majesty’s Servants.” Here the law that is followed by animals has been created by men—the British military in India—and the rule of the British is glorified. In this story the narrator recounts a conversation among animals that he overhears on a night passed in a military camp where the Viceroy of India is meeting with the Amir of Afghanistan. As a young journalist, Kipling himself attended such an event. In the story, the Amir, described as “a wild king of a very wild country,” has brought with him an entourage of “savage men and savage horses” (p. 151). “Her Majesty’s Servants,” animals who serve England, grumble about these uncultivated horses who stampede each night through the camp, disrupting their sleep. Throughout the narrative, various beasts speak in turn about how they fight for the British in colonial wars, each asserting that his manner in battle is best. When a youthful mule asks why the beasts must fight at all, the troop-horse, who has been established as a superior fighting animal and “servant,” responds, “Because we are told to” (p. 162). This story and the first Jungle Book as a whole conclude with a clear message: Obey orders and all will be well. At the end of the tale, the narrator listens to another conversation, this time between a “native officer” and a Central Asian chief, who watch 30,000 British soldiers and their animals parade for the Amir, among them the beasts overheard on the previous night. When the chief marvels at the obedience of the men and animals, asking, “In what manner was this wonderful thing done?” the officer responds, “There was an order, and they obeyed” (p. 166). The story is then punctuated with the “Parade-Song of the Camp Animals”: The animals sing, “Children of the Camp are we, / Serving each in his degree” (p. 169). All in all, the lawlessness of “savage” beasts is contrasted with the orderly hierarchy of English-trained animals. Creatures ruled by the English are presented as models of self-regulation and submission. The animals seem to stand in for the Indian people whom the British govern. The rule—and the Law—of the English is thus hailed without ambivalence. This celebration of British rule in India can be seen in other Jungle Book stories as well, such as “The Undertakers” and “Letting in the Jungle.”

Animals in the Mowgli stories are classified as obedient to the Law or antagonistic to it, such as, respectively, the queen’s servants and the “savage” horses. Within The Jungle Books, the Law is in part defined by its opposition to the lawlessness of the latter group. In fact, the Law is first mentioned at the beginning of the first Jungle Book story when Shere Khan, a tiger, violates it.