Page 9 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Indian Freedom Struggle (1707–1947 A.D.)

Notes Causes for the Failure of the French:
The French position which at one time dazzled the Indian world by its political successes was destined
to end in humiliation and failure. Among the various causes responsible for the defeat of the French
and the victory of the English, the following few deserve special mention:
French Continental Preoccupations: The continental ambitions of France in the 18th century
considerably strained her resources. The French monarchs of the time were fighting for “natural
frontiers” for their country which meant acquisition of new territories towards the Low Countries,
extension of the frontier to the Rhine and towards Italy. Such expansionist schemes involved that
country deeper and deeper into the political muddle of Europe, taxed her energies and kept her
constantly at war with the states of Europe. France cared more for a few hundred square miles of
territory on her frontier to bigger stakes in North America or India. France attempted simultaneously
the difficult task of continental expansion and colonial acquisitions. This divided her resources and
made her unequal to the task in facing her adversaries. It was the misfortune of France that she
gained almost nothing on the continent and lost her colonial possessions also. England, on the other
hand, did not covet an inch of European territory. A part of Europe, England felt herself apart from
it. England’s interests in Europe were mainly confined to the maintenance of a balance of power in
that continent. England’s ambition was mainly colonial and in this single-minded objective she came
off with flying colours. She won the struggle both in India and North America and worsted off
France in both these regions.
Different Systems of Government in England and France: French historians have rightly attributed
the failure of France in the colonial struggle to the inferior system of the government prevalent in
France as compared to the English system of government. The French government was despotic and
depended on the personality of the monarch. Even under Louis XIV, the Grand Monarque, the system
was showing serious cracks. The numerous wars that Louis XIV waged sapped the vitality of the
state, ruined her financial resources and made French power look like an inflated balloon. The deluge
followed close on his death. His weak and sensual successor, Louis XV frittered away the resources
of France upon his numerous mistresses and other favourites like dancers and hair-dressers. England,
1
3
on the other hand, was ruled by an englightened oligarchy. Under the rule of the Whig Party, England
2
took great strides towards a constitutional set-up, reducing the British realm into “a sort of a crowned
republic.” The system showed considerable vitality and grew from strength to strength. Alfred Lyall
emphasises the rottenness of the French system of Government when he writes: “India was not lost
by the French because Dupleix was recalled, or because La Bourdonnais and D’Ache both left the
coast at critical moments or because Lally was headstrong and intractable. Still less was the loss due
to any national inaptitude for distant and perilous enterprises in which the French have displayed
high qualities... It was through the short-sighted, ill-managed European policy of Louis XV, misguided
by his mistresses and by incompetent ministers, that France lost her Indian settlements in the Seven
Years War.”
Differences in the Organisation of the two Companies: The French Company was a department of
1
the state. The Company had been launched with a share capital of 5 million lives out of which the
2
monarch subscribed million lives. Its directors were nominated by the king from the shareholders
and they carried on the decisions of two High Commissioners appointed by the Government. Since
the state guaranted dividend to the shareholders, the latter took very little interest in promoting the
prosperity of the Company. So great was the lack of public interest that from 1725 to 1765 the
shareholders never met and the Company was managed as a department of the state. Under these
circumstances the financial position of the French Company progressively deteriorated. At one stage
the resources of the Company dwindled to such a low ebb that it had to sell its trading rights to a
group of merchants from St. Malo for an annual payment. From 1721 to 1740 the Comapany traded
on borrowed capital. Constantly propped up by subsidies from the royal treasury, the Company was
kept going by monopoly of tobacco and gambling in lotteries. Such a company was ill-equipped to
support the ambitions of Dupleix or finance his expensive wars. The English Company, on the other
hand, was an independent commercial corporation. While this Company could not remain altogether

4 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY