Question

Describe the failure of the French in India and the main reasons for the success of the British, due to the failure of the French in India,

Answer 1

$\bold{\huge{\underline{Answer-}}}$



1. French was dependent on the French company's government for its following reasons in India. Unable to give independence, he failed in India, because without French, Karan could not make a decision against British in India.

2 . The FCC company was financially vulnerable. Due to the conflict in the war, the French company did not have enough cube in India, so it was unsuccessful in India due to lack of resources.

3. There were mutual differences among the French officers, so the French failed because of their non-cooperation. They were organized and could never face the British, so they failed.


4. In this period France was entangled in war with many European countries, so he could not support the French company in India, so that the French failed.


$\bf \: Due \: to \: the \: success \: of \: the \: British \: in \: Ind ia -$
Englishmen in India were defeated due to the following reasons for their rights in French.


1. The British East India Company was an independent trading company, so he succeeded in making decisions independently at the time of need. | The business of


2 India Company was good. He had enough resources, so the British succeeded in India. .


3. England did not take part in the European War, but in India, he was able to succeed in India, so that he could succeed in India.


4 The England government had been paving the way for its success by giving financial support to the East India Company from time to time. Cooperation of British officers and their vigorous nascent power made them successful in India. .

Answer 2

This article throws light upon the 2 causes for the failure  of French in India.

Cause # 1. French Government:

The French Government in the 17th century and for the major part of the eighteenth (till we reach the French Revolution in 1789) was a personal despotism.

french Government did not realise the importance of the colo­nial empires in India and America, and got her involved in the Continental War near her home which precluded her from sending adequate help to her colonies abroad.

Alfred Lyall rightly points out: “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 head-strong 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”.

Martineou’s remarks that “no policy was more in opportune” not to retain in Europe all the French land and naval forces “and it is perhaps because we dispersed them to Canada and India, parti­cularly to Canada, that we lost the Seven Years’ War. At that time … the primary interests of France required her to confine her attention to Europe. When the house is on fire, one does not think of the stable”. But France had made the initial mistake by rever­sing her traditional alliance against Austria by the Diplomatic Revolu­tion which brought her erstwhile enemy Austria to her side which was a liability rather than any accession to strength to her.

Thus was her Continental Policy responsible for her failure both in Ame­rica and England in the Seven Years’ War. England had an advan­tage over France. She fought the war in the Continent with the help of Prussia, a rising military power very near to France and employed much of her strength and energy to fight the French in America, India and on the Seas.

Cause # 2. French Company:  

There was an inherent weakness in the very nature of the organisation of the French Company. It was a Government sponsored enterprise financed by the King in major part. Naturally, the Company did not enjoy autonomy, nor did it re­present the interest of the French nation.

The fortune or misfortune of the Company was unrelated to the fortune or misfortune of the French nation. During Louis XIV’s life time, his finance minister Colbert had created a great enthusiasm in trade, commerce and industry and the French Company profited by the general enthusiasm.

But from the latter part of Louis XIV’s rule this enthusiasm was on the wane, enthusiasm was replaced by general neglect. Naturally, the success or failure of the Company was of no concern to the French nation. But the English East India Company was a joint-stock company in whose fortune or misfortune a large section of the English nation was directly interested.

The British Government interfered in the affairs of the Company only when it was necessary to secure the interest of its shareholders. Thus while the English Company moved with its own initiative and with the moral sup­port of the Government at home which interfered only to help it, the French Company was a Government enterprise which could only move under government’s directives and assistance.

The moment the assistance was lacking, the French Company was incapable of standing on its own. While the English East India Company was an asset to the British Government, for the Government even received loans from it, the French East India Company was a liability to the home government.