The elephant is an elephant is an elephant

Unlike Ramona, I didn't really see the elephant as a modernist symbol. Firstly, the elephant is a very "Asian" metaphor, they are only available in India, Africa or Thailand. The narrator admits that this incident

"gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism – the real motives for which despotic governments act."

This suggests that the incident relates to a method and difficulties of ruling. Perhaps he understands why despotic governments are cruel - they are compelled to uphold "justice", the other natives who want to literally feed on the corpse of the "elephant", the incident draws too much attention to be left unattended, etc etc. Secondly, the opinion was divided not on the nature of the elephant but on the decision to shoot it. Lastly, the rampage was temporal, it is later "harmless", and the reason for this is provided by the narrator.

I saw it the elephant as clearly representing natives who revolt; there are not inherently "wild", they are "tame" but perhaps they, for a period, went "must". What do you all think?

In any case, it doesn't seem to fit the mould of the modernist symbol as easily as the Marabar Caves and Lighthouse. It seems like a parable in which we can draw parallels to the difficulties of governing empire from the coloniser's point of view.