French influence in the Subcontinent

[liontk]

Salut gentleman/madamoiselle

This thread is regarding a question that I have pondered for many years with respect to linguistic and cultural influences. From my knowledge of history, the french louis empire had huge influence over the subcontinent till the end of late 19th century. However looking at today , the indienne subcontinent still resonates some lingering british influencce in terms of style of government, laws, military, while in comparison french governing, laws and influence is nearly dead except for some overseas territories and Quebec remaining today(we have our own laws special laws). I want to know is how the british were different from the approach the louis government used with respect to trade and mercentile that eventually prepelled britain over the first french empire and french cultural influence. Now I know this topic is contentious and I want to be objective as I am clearly seeking a answer rather than a debate. Also note that I am not condoning colonial rule and I know some of the horrific things that the colonial européen rule had on india so I do not want to reopen an old wound with respect to that and I also carry partial pakistani ancestry(proud every bit of it).

 

[Developereo]

Don't know about the Subcontinent, but France seems to be a particular favorite of political exiles and aristocratic expats from the Middle East, especially Iran.

 

[STEELMAN]

For me French fries with Whiskey some times...

 

[Rig Vedic]

Salut gentleman/madamoiselle

This thread is regarding a question that I have pondered for many years with respect to linguistic and cultural influences. From my knowledge of history, the french louis empire had huge influence over the subcontinent till the end of late 19th century. However looking at today , the indienne subcontinent still resonates some lingering british influencce in terms of style of government, laws, military, while in comparison french governing, laws and influence is nearly dead except for some overseas territories and Quebec remaining today(we have our own laws special laws). I want to know is how the british were different from the approach the louis government used with respect to trade and mercentile that eventually prepelled britain over the first french empire and french cultural influence. Now I know this topic is contentious and I want to be objective as I am clearly seeking a answer rather than a debate. Also note that I am not condoning colonial rule and I know some of the horrific things that the colonial européen rule had on india so I do not want to reopen an old wound with respect to that and I also carry partial pakistani ancestry(proud every bit of it).

The royal government of France (which was overthrown in the revolution) was not an amenable medium for the elites of Europe. Napoleon too became uncooperative and had to be restrained. It was this domestic turmoil, in which large numbers of French people were slaughtered, that kept France busy.

 

[Sashan]

Pondicherry where I lived for couple of years but still would go back when I was living in Chennai for taxfree liquor and beer has the French influence as it was a French colony. (shown in Life of Pi) - Roads were built in excellent fashion and all roads going east would lead to beach while the intersections are perfect at right angles.

But I do not believe French or British performed horrific things in India(British - post 1857) except for Jalianwala Bagh. Portuguese on the other hand were not such a good influence - Goan inquisition is just one pointer to the atrocities performed by Portuguese.

As for the most recent influence on me - Alizee and her songs are having magical effect on me.

And nowadays drive to Montreal on a Men's night out and come back the next day - who can miss Rue St. Catherine??

 

[Rig Vedic]

But I do not believe French or British performed horrific things in India(British - post 1857) except for Jalianwala Bagh. Portuguese on the other hand were not such a good influence - Goan inquisition is just one pointer to the atrocities performed by Portuguese.

British were responsible for creating dozens of famines in which millions were slaughtered by starvation, even in traditionally fertile areas.

 

[Sashan]

British were responsible for creating dozens of famines in which millions were slaughtered by starvation, even in traditionally fertile areas.

Can you be more specific? As for the Bengal famine in 1940s I have always argued that the local people(provincial governments outside of Bengal) were mostly responsible for the famine after nature failed the Bengal people for couple of years.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Can you be more specific? As for the Bengal famine in 1940s I have always argued that the local people(provincial governments outside of Bengal) were mostly responsible for the famine after nature failed the Bengal people for couple of years.

See Timeline of major famines in India during British rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For photos see THEN AND NOW: 15 FAMINES UNDER BRITISH RULE &TOTAL INDIANS DEAD 45 MILLION

 

[Rig Vedic]

See also The British Empire, Ecology and Famines in Late 19th Century Central India for a study of causes. Overall British were successful in killing some 45 million people by famine. Which is a huge number by any standards, but especially considering that the population in those days was much lower.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Pondicherry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This small city in Southern India was under French rule for centuries . There is quite a bit of French influence there , i have heard.

 

[Zabaniyah]

For me French fries with Whiskey some times...

French fries is Belgian

 

[Dushmann]

French occupation in India was limited to pondicherry and these are really very very small coastal areas consisting of a few rice growing and fishing villages and a small French village near a small port. words like 'occupantion' 'colonization' 'french India' are too big for those small hamlets. all I can say about them is that so far I have not heard anything significant or negative about them (e.g. religious extremism of Portuguese) and their leaving India was not messy affair (like the Portuguese goa). I don't know much about history,but I think military relationship between French and India is very old and it would be an interesting and may be unexplored topic for a study. (I think people often ignore it because they think India as an entity came into being at 1947) The French have been regular suppliers of weapons to Indian army (and perhaps navies) e.g. Indian army used French Artillary in third battle of panipat, which was very effective and *almost* won the war for India. Later, after losing large part of India to British, many surviving indian states took help of the French to modernise their armies.
just my observation.

 

[Not Sure]

Salut gentleman/madamoiselle

This thread is regarding a question that I have pondered for many years with respect to linguistic and cultural influences. From my knowledge of history, the french louis empire had huge influence over the subcontinent till the end of late 19th century. However looking at today , the indienne subcontinent still resonates some lingering british influencce in terms of style of government, laws, military, while in comparison french governing, laws and influence is nearly dead except for some overseas territories and Quebec remaining today(we have our own laws special laws). I want to know is how the british were different from the approach the louis government used with respect to trade and mercentile that eventually prepelled britain over the first french empire and french cultural influence. Now I know this topic is contentious and I want to be objective as I am clearly seeking a answer rather than a debate. Also note that I am not condoning colonial rule and I know some of the horrific things that the colonial européen rule had on india so I do not want to reopen an old wound with respect to that and I also carry partial pakistani ancestry(proud every bit of it).

Salut... back at ya!

To get a better grip on how the French lost out on the Indian subcontinent, yet managed to help the colonial states of North America get rid of the British influence, you need to start studying the history of the rivalry that was always there but took definitive shapes at 9 years' war and onwards.

That Nine Years' War left Britain economically much stronger than France, and even the Dutch, and helped expand their colonial agendas. As a consequence of the war, Britain was already the biggest power with an advanced military with France as its main rival.

That was followed by scrambling of spice routes and trade rights in India (won) by East India Company, and followed by (a bit too late) Dutch East India Company.

While the Mughals (emperors of India) might have been more keen on handing the rights out to the French (The word "Firang" in Hindi/Urdu meant white foreigner, was Indian accented form of Frank - a Frenchman), the French East India Company (the Compagnie française des Indes orientales) entered a bit too late, and EIC and DEIC had already held the ground.

The conflicts began when the Mughal power began to decline and the subcontinent became more and more brittle for anyone to take.

That's when the British defeated the French, first in the Carnatic Wars (South India, to open the military and trade routes through sea - that opened to the southeast Asia, as well as to Africa), and then in the ever more critical battle of Plassy (French and Nawab of Bengal vs British East India Company).

The Battle of Plassy was extremely critical in governing of India because it gave the British complete control of Bengal (Now Bangladesh), which was not only the hub of the political and military power by then, but was also the center of trade and finance.

Once the financial and political center was under their possession, it was not difficult for the Brits to keep annexing one after another, almost all the next sub-states that had cropped up at the decline of the Mughal Empire.

Because the Britishers were already very powerful, esp militarily, this boost in their trade and finances from India made them only stronger with the coming times.

Even during the war of the North and South in the United States, a great amount of Iron and almost all of the cotton (which was blocked by the Confederate States) were supplied from India to the North East States that were the main moneymaking areas of the English Businessmen. In fact, it was that supply of Cotton and Iron, heavily encouraged by the Brits, that turned Bombay into a viable harbor and a trade center, and helped India's biggest business house Tata to appear on the global stage as a big producer cum supplier of Iron.

 

[Don Jaguar]

I some times watch french movies is that included in influence?

 

[liontk]

Salut... back at ya!

To get a better grip on how the French lost out on the Indian subcontinent, yet managed to help the colonial states of North America get rid of the British influence, you need to start studying the history of the rivalry that was always there but took definitive shapes at 9 years' war and onwards.

That Nine Years' War left Britain economically much stronger than France, and even the Dutch, and helped expand their colonial agendas. As a consequence of the war, Britain was already the biggest power with an advanced military with France as its main rival.

That was followed by scrambling of spice routes and trade rights in India (won) by East India Company, and followed by (a bit too late) Dutch East India Company.

While the Mughals (emperors of India) might have been more keen on handing the rights out to the French (The word "Firang" in Hindi/Urdu meant white foreigner, was Indian accented form of Frank - a Frenchman), the French East India Company (the Compagnie française des Indes orientales) entered a bit too late, and EIC and DEIC had already held the ground.

The conflicts began when the Mughal power began to decline and the subcontinent became more and more brittle for anyone to take.

That's when the British defeated the French, first in the Carnatic Wars (South India, to open the military and trade routes through sea - that opened to the southeast Asia, as well as to Africa), and then in the ever more critical battle of Plassy (French and Nawab of Bengal vs British East India Company).

The Battle of Plassy was extremely critical in governing of India because it gave the British complete control of Bengal (Now Bangladesh), which was not only the hub of the political and military power by then, but was also the center of trade and finance.

Once the financial and political center was under their possession, it was not difficult for the Brits to keep annexing one after another, almost all the next sub-states that had cropped up at the decline of the Mughal Empire.

Because the Britishers were already very powerful, esp militarily, this boost in their trade and finances from India made them only stronger with the coming times.

Even during the war of the North and South in the United States, a great amount of Iron and almost all of the cotton (which was blocked by the Confederate States) were supplied from India to the North East States that were the main moneymaking areas of the English Businessmen. In fact, it was that supply of Cotton and Iron, heavily encouraged by the Brits, that turned Bombay into a viable harbor and a trade center, and helped India's biggest business house Tata to appear on the global stage as a big producer cum supplier of Iron.

Thanks for answering my questions with respect to europèen rule, I think the reasoning you gave coupled the first french empire just not focusing on giving attention to overseas colonies and coming late to the game basically.