The Anglo-French rivalry in the Carnatic that lasted for about two decades with short intervals of peace at last decided once for all that the French were to be the dependants of the English in India. The career of the French in India has been pictured by Malleson in the following words: “Beginning with small means, then suddenly astonishing the world by its dazzling promise, the venture of the French in India was destined to end thus early in humiliation and failure.
It was the sad fate of France in this, the most unfortunate of her wars to be disgraced on the continent and to lose simultaneously her possessions in the East and the West.” Though the Treaty of Paris, 1763, accorded to the French the status quo as it stood in 1749, there was a marked decline in the position and status of the French in India. They were no longer masters, only subordinates, whose existence in India depended upon the goodwill and kindness of the English.
The causes for the French failure in the Carnatic wars can be traced to several factors. They suffered much on account of scarcity of necessary funds and lack of timely support from the home government. Unlike the English East India Company, the French East India Company was a State concern, depending for anything and everything on the home government its freedom of action was very much limited by the charter and the whims and fancies of the rulers.
Col. Malleson writes, “We will still be forced to lay the chief blame at the door of France, on the shoulders of the sensual monarch under whose rule the resources of the kingdom were so lavishly wasted and misdirected. Whilst English India received plentiful supplies of men and ships in abundance and thought herself hardly used, French India received from the mother country scarcely more than two millions of Francs! There could be but one result to such a mode of supporting a colony and that result appeared on 16th January 1761.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Again, the French East India Company was in course of time growing into a department of state, result being that Company lost the energy and vigour of a private enterprise. Its limited resources were inadequate and the viceroys and their subordinates very often indulged in private trade smuggling, slave trade etc. which directly or indirectly contributed much to the deviation from the main purpose and the consequent collapse of the French power.
France, during the period was blessed with some enterprising and energetic generals in India like Dupleix, La Bourdonnais, Bussy and Lally. On the opposite side we see only Clive, with accomplishments of a genius when comparing the abilities of the military generals on both sides, it becomes difficult to understand why the French failed so miserably. The fact is that while the French had good generals, the English had better disciplined subordinates.
Insubordination and strife rent the French army and navy, neutralising the abilities of their Commanders. The bickering and jealousies of the subordinates prevented them from giving support and cooperation, and they in turn served to thwart the grand plans of the leaders. We can see this force working from the very beginning of the struggle till the end-Dupleix and La Bourdonnais to Lally and De Lyrit.
The significant role that sea power played in the Anglo-French rivalry cannot be underestimated. The French were forced to fight the war with a power that was growing in naval strength. Lyall writes, “It must be obvious to all who carefully survey the situation that when two great nations are at war in a distant country, which can be reached only by a long sea voyage, the nation which has a superior navy can break the communication of its adversary, can cut off its supplies and reinforcements and can starve him out.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
No we have seen that in the Seven Years’ War, the English were far stronger in warships than the French; they swept the French navy out of all the seas and blockaded the whole Indian coast, so that their forts and garrisons became gradually weaker and surrendered one by one”. In the initial stages the French won some victories in the sea; the capture of Madras (now Chennai) in 1746 was affected by La Bourdonnais after his indecisive naval battle with Peyton. The retirement of La Bourdonnais affected adversely the naval fortunes of the French; they were not able to keep up the same standard till the very end.
Again while the English had the settlement of Bengal, which contributed a great deal to the triumphs of the English, as a strong base, the French has only Pondicherry very much ill-equipped for serving as a base for military operations. Smith observes, ‘Neither Alexander, the great nor Napoleon could have won the empire of India by starting from Pondicherry as base and contending with a power which held Bengal and command of the sea.” Added to the naval inferiority was the fact that the French military ability was not exploited to the full in India. The discord between the commanders of the land sea forces stood in the way of unified action.”
The advent of Lally marked the final stage in the fall of the French power. Though he was an able commander his character and exploits got no acclaim from the people or his subordinates. His quarrelsome and intemperate character contributed a great deal to the final collapse of the already shattered French power.
The recall of Bussy from Hyderabad, which paved the way for the loss of French hold in the Deccan, has been pointed out as one of the most serious diplomatic mistakes committed by Lally. France could never make up the loss caused by Lally.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thus the French failed to realise the dream of building up a French Empire in India. The debacle of the French Company led Voltaire to make this trenchant criticism: “At last there was left to the French only regret for having spend immense sums for over forty years for maintaining a company which never made the least profit, which never pays to its shareholders and creditors from the profits of its commerce which in its Indian administration lived only in secret brigandage “.