The creation of colonial history

In “Shooting an Elephant”, the narrator is pressured by the natives to kill the elephant against his own will. I am wondering if this idea of the colonizer as merely a “puppet”, “expected to perform certain roles”, can be seen in relation to the revisionist argument cited in Chatterjee’s article. In the revisionist history, Indians can be constructed as “active agents and not simply passive bystanders and victims in the creation of colonial India” (29) – that as subjects in their own history, they play a central role in the continuity of India from pre-colonial to early colonial, which thus posits colonialism as “a rather brief interlude, merging with the longer narrative” (30). Although “Shooting an Elephant” is not on Indian colonial history, but in a similar sense, the colonizer in “Shooting an Elephant” seems to play little function in the creation of Burmese history. It is the natives who construct the white man’s role. Whatever power he possesses is sustained by the natives, who appear as “active agents”, insistently pushing the White Man along to fulfill certain roles. Thus the shooting of the elephant can be seen as perhaps a symbolic loss of the colonizer’s power and the "influential" role he is “expected” to play in the making of a colonial history. In that light, we can see how subjectivity can be restored to the natives.