Interesting Angle - Shooting

It is interesting to me how the story begins by providing an 'honest' view of a European official trapped - he "was stuck between [his] hatred of the empire [he] served and [his] rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make [his] job impossible". This 'in between-ness' is then declared a "normal by-product of imperialism", what then is the real product of imperialism? Did the "early British administrators in India [really intend] to train the people of India to govern and protect themselves ... rather than to establish the rule of a British bureaucracy?" (Chatterjee 14).

I think Orwell's story provides some sort of an answer. The shooting incident reveals "a better glimpse ... of the real nature of imperialism – the real motives for which despotic governments act". Lets just say the British administrators really intended on 'helping' the Indians modernise, however the immense pressure to "to act like a sahib ... to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things" prevents them from actually 'helping' the Indians, but reproduces the act of enslavement?

Simply put (I hope):
The immense pressure to rule, to be a figure of authority is that which fuels the colonial ambition and prevents any real 'help' from being given to the Indians.

I think Shooting An Elephant takes a rather sympathetic slant in addressing the colonial situation in India, and raises the question - to what extent was imperialism/colonialism in India a product of context (pressure) and/or the expectations of the natives?

P.S. Sorry about the rambling guys!