Indian Colonization, Free-to-Use Essay Sample in History

France and British were the major powers that contended to colonize India. They each used different strategies to gain this access. In the end, the British overpowered the French and it maintained India as its colony. The Indians related differently with the two groups which largely distributed to the success or failure of these two colonizers.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Upon entering India, the French formed an East India company under the leadership of Colbert which traded with the Indians. However, they had a hostile relationship with the Indians because they tried to use direct rule to overcome them. Though the company received all the help that they needed from their state, the French did not accomplish their mission of establishing their colony in India with success (Smith, 100). By 1720, the French seemed to be gaining the power to control the Indians but the English succeeded by driving them out. Duplex came in 1741, and he became the governor of Pondicherry directing the affairs of East Indies. With his skills, he was able to know the real weaknesses and the behavior of the Indian politics (Loomba, 66). He was the first person to think of giving the recruiting the Indian soldiers the discipline and efficiency of the French soldiers. By doing this, he developed a good relationship with the natives. While there was still peace between the two companies, there was still war in Carnic, and the British were able to conquer French, and their power was destroyed because of various reasons.

The French government failed to support them. The French government at first did not view their Indian and American colony as important. Instead, the government engaged in a war with the neighboring countries which prevented it from sending support to its colonies. Some great scholars like Alfred Lyall affirm that the French did not lose India because of the withdrawal of Dupleix but due to the inability and dangerous innovations which the French engaged in (Smith, 102). The incompetence of the ministers and wrong managed policies of Louis guided by his mistresses contributed to their loss during the seven years' war. France made a mistake of changing her formal alliance against Australia using the consular rebellion that brought her formal enemy Australia to her side which was a disadvantage than strength.

The organization of the French was weak. The company was funded by the king, and therefore it was dependent. The challenge or success of the company did not reflect that of the French nation. At first, Louis XIV and his finance minister had made plans on how to trade with the Indians, and the company benefited from it, but during his later years, he neglected his enthusiasm for the business. In short, the wellbeing of the company did not concern the French government. This was contrary to the British company whose interest was the interest of the government. The French company was a government property controlled by the government and without the support of the government they could do nothing.

The strength of the French seats of power was not as strong as those of its competitors. The British had three sturdy seats of power while the French had only few which were not well equipped in Pondicherry, and a harbor and sea base at Mauritius. Their set of power was weaker both in trade and war than that of the British. The improvement of the British administration in Bengal after the Plassey disposed of a lot of resources in the hands of the English and Bengal council which strengthened the British position. On the other hand, Lally did not have enough to pay his soldiers. Strategically, the location of the French company in the area was fragile. Various leaders have agreed that the blame of the failure should not be on the individual because even superior leaders like Napoleon or Alexander the great could be able to attain that colony.

Their naval was weak. The war at Carnic showed that the success or failure of an organization depended on their advantage at the navel. The French victory in 1746 was due to her maritime power on the coast. However, she could not maintain this power because, during her fight with Australia, her army was very much weakened. This is seen when the French made numerous of making their troops withdraw from the Indian colony (Loomba, 122). The failure of the French maritime power in comparison with that of the British was a significant contributor to the French in India. The French leader did not see the importance of the navy troops in the India territory, and he mostly depended on the land army which contributed to his failure.

.The British had a peaceful existence with the Indians more than the French. Apart from trading together, they also associated with the Indians freely. The primary religion practiced by the Indians was Hinduism (Viswanathan, 93). Upon entering India, the British assimilated the Indian culture. They changed their caste system in the name of economic and power. The Brahmins who were higher in the traditional caste became lower than the Kshatriyas because the British regarded royalty more than religious and cultural activities of the Indians. Also, the British were given many women and concubines regardless of class, therefore, changing the Indian tradition. The British men respected their native wives and children and regarded their relationship as legal. They also transformed the economy of the country by introducing means of transport. Since the British had a good relationship with the Indians, they were able to assimilate them into their culture which included Christianity. Unlike the French who were always fighting, the British employed good tactics of ruling the Indians. In the end, the British conquered Indians. Various reasons contributed to the success of the British over the French.

`The British introduced the East India Company. There was a high demand for spices in Europe, and as a result, they launched this company to help them acquire the spices. The company was made of private shareholders including wealthy merchants. As time passed by, the company gained a lot of profit from the trade, and it became influential in Europe. In 1750, the company started to grow stronger, and they used it in 7157 to fight against the Nawab and the French. This made the company to be the most influential force in India. Later, they defeated the French and others who were fighting against the British (Viswanathan, 130). The British through the help of the East Indian Company succeeded in expanding their influence. Though they were resisted by the natives like Tipu Sultan and Sikh Empire, they defeated them. By 1800, half of the Indian continent was under the influence of the British. The aim of the British was not to conquer the Indians but to exploit and extend their influence.

The end of the Mughal Empire was also a significant contributor to the success of the British in conquering Indians. By 1700, the Indian continent was under the rule of this great dynasty. The empire had conquered most of South Asia and had established peace and prosperity in the area. In 1750, the empire was falling. They failed to rule their realms directly and instead; they delegated the duties to local leaders. With time, the local leaders became powerful and independent which weakened the empire. The empire was also reduced by the attack of an Afghan warlord that conquered the capital city of the empire. Aurangzeb who was a Muslim extremist took over the emperor (Viswanathan, 136). He was very much against the traditions and policies of the Mughal Empire which led to the rise of sentiments among the Indians. This resentment led to protest from Marathas which weakened the empire. Mughal Empire remained only a figure in Delhi, and the Indian only paid a nominal tribute. The power remained in the hands of local Muslim and Hindu leaders. Indians were powerless and without a king by the time the British came to India which gave them the best opportunity to rule them.

The use of indirect rule resulted in their success. After the decline of Mughal Empire, there arose a competition among the local leaders. The fall of the empire had earlier resulted in a lot of instability in India. The village elders started fighting each other including the religious leaders. The conflict was massive in the Indian sub-continent by the eighteenth century. Therefore, they were receptive to the order and stability that was brought by the British government. The British employed an indirect rule where they used the local elites and leaders to rule their territory (Loomba, 150). They used these leaders to collect taxes and enforce law and order. This method made the local elites and leaders to accept the British and their influence significantly. Instead of acquiring the states by force, they made treaties with the local leaders. This treaty stated that the British would not interfere with the local leaders as long as they are made their successors. They also agreed with the rulers to allow them to invade their territory in peace. They will introduce a military station in every state, and they will not require any tax from various states.

British rule was attractive. The British government came with many benefits, and therefore, the Indians were willing to accept it, and they tried not to oppose them lest they lose their privilege (Smith, 139). After a long experience of war, the natives observed that those who submitted to the rule of the British were better and stable. The British forbid people in their territories from attacking their neighbors which resulted in peace in the most part of the country. This made the people accept the British rule even though they were aware of the exploitation of their property. Stability and economic growth increased over the years which ensured that the local elites corporate with the elites. They did not try to indoctrinate them or introduce any ideologies on them. They even awakened the lenient dogmas of the natives which united many groups like Hindus and the British Raj. This helped them to rule in peace in a diverse area

To sum it up, French did not stay in India for a long time because it was not able to sustain itself due to lack of support from their government, their seats of power and organization were weak. Therefore, they did not leave much influence. On the other hand, the British had laid good plans which ensured that they succeed in their conquest. They had good relation with the Indians, and eventually, they were able to live peacefully with them.

Works cited

Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/postcolonialism. Routledge, 2015.Smith, Donald Eugene. India as a secular state. Princeton University Press, 2015. University Press, 2014

Viswanathan, Gauri. Masks of Conquest: Literary study and British rule in India. Columbia