Pondicherry in the Era of the French Revolution 1785–1793 Part 2: The Heights and the Fall 1791–1793
Abstract
61
Full text
Pondicherry in the Era of the French Revolution 1785–1793 Part 2: The Heights and the Fall 1791–1793 Michal Wanner1 ABSTRACT The study is acontinuation of the same author’s contribution published on the pages of this periodical. It is devoted to the development of Pondicherry during the French Revolution, in the years 1791–1793. The course of the Revolution in French Indian colonies was dynamized by primary milestones of the development in France whose impact in each of the colonies was different in dependence on social composition and the character of economy. The development in Pondicherry was relatively calm, but was in substantial way influenced by conflicts with other factories, especially Chandernagore in Bengal and headquarters of all French colonies in Indian Ocean on the Mascarene Islands. It was concentrated on satisfying the requirements of democratization, and was free of revolutionary excesses. In principle, the loyalty towards the King, and the law and authorities in Paris remained. The main point of disputes was the question of involving classes of Indians and Eurasians into political process. While requests of the half-breeds had been accepted, crowds of Indian citizens remained beyond the politic structure despite the role they had in the economic life of the colony. But the local French elites were aware the value of this population for France, therefore attempted to find asort of modus vivendi. The indigenous population was perceived as the population of another country and another culture, could not become French nationals, but its interests had to be taken into account. Nevertheless this concept did not get achance to develop as aresult of British action against the French colonies. Pondicherry remained virtually abandoned in this fight by Paris as well as its superiors from Port Louis. This fact after the surrender lead inevitably to an anti-revolutionary reaction among the inhabitants. The fall of Pondicherry did not result from the consequences of the French Revolution, but from the presumed British worries over the French re-expansion in India. The framework of the British action should be retrieved therefore in previous development. As aresult of this operation Pondicherry definitely lost its importance. KEYWORDS History of India; the French Revolution in Colonies; History of East India Companies; British-French Struggle for India; French Colonial Imperium in Asia 1 Michal Wanner, Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic, Department of Archives Administration and Records Management, Nad Štolou 3, 170 34, Praha 7, Czech Republic, [email protected]
62 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2018 This study follows the article by the same author, which has appeared in this journal;2 to place that in abroader perspective, it relates to his studies authored in periodicals published by Brno and Olomouc universities.3 It covers the course of the French Revolution in Pondicherry— the centre of French colonies4 in India (fr. Pondichéry, todayʼs Puducherry). The earlier study reported the source bases, and appraised the basic directions of the existing researches and their outcomes. It analysed the colony condition after the American Revolutionary War; the failed effort of old-regime clerks in the field of economics and administration; the establishment of anew monopoly company— the Company for Indies and China (Compagnie des Indes et la Chine); the Company’s impact on the trade between France and India; the outbreak of the Revolution associated with the formation of revolutionary bodies; and agradual escalation of conflicts among Europeans, some indigenous population, and Eurasians. As to the time span, the previous study covered the period up to the adoption of key requirements of the Revolution defined in the colony in February 1790 by the National Assembly in Paris, and the formation of the third General Assembly in this factory in June 1791. Another part of the study describes further stages of the revolutionary events in Pondicherry and other colonies, primarily in Chandernagore (fr. Chandernagor, todayʼs Chandannagar). It deals with the outset of the Colonial Assembly of French Factories in Pondicherry; the introduction of the Constitution adopted in the French colonies in India; the development of complex relationships among revolutionaries in Pondicherry, Chandernagore and on the Mascarene Islands. The relationships between French settlers and the indigenous population are given in basic outlines, since they have been already looked at in one in-depth study by Orsay M.Gobalakichenane.5 This study ends with the eruption of the French-British conflict and the capture of Pondicherry by the troops of the English East India Company, which means the step that once radically changed the French factories position in India. 2 M.WANNER, Pondicherry in The French Revolution Era 1785–1793: Part 1: Reasons and Beginnings 1785–1791, in: Prague Papers on the History of International Relations, No.1, 2017, pp. 51–66. 3 M.WANNER, Zápas evropských mocností vIndickém oceánu vdobě války onezávislost USA 1778–1783, in: Historica Olomucensia, Vol.48,2015, pp. 69–97; M.WANNER, Britsko-francouzské vztahy vIndii 1787–1794 vzrcadle pramenů úřadu generálních guvernérů britské Indie— Anglo-French Relations in India 1787–1794 in the Mirror of Governor-Generals of British India Sources, in: Studia Historica Brunensia, Vol. 63, Is. 2, 2016, pp. 5–22. 4 The author uses the term colony in the sense it is commonly understood in Central Europe, i.e. as ageneral denomination of the overseas settlement, as asynonym of amore precise term of afactory or atrading station, aterritory in the general sense dependent on the metropolis. 5 M.GOBALAKICHENANE, La revolution française des Tamouls de Pondichéry (1790–1793), Palaniappa 2014. The authorʼs thanks for suggestive comments and commentaries that contributed to the completion of this part of the study belong to Mr. Gobala - kichenane.
MIcHAL WANNER 63 THE CONSTITUTION OF JULY 1791 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COLONIAL ASSEMBLY The third General Assembly of the Pondicherry Residents called in June 1791 had at first to settle disputes between the Revolutionary Committee, the Governor and the Town Council. The thing that stabilized the situation was the abolishment of the Revolutionary Committee’s rights. Impending chaos was averted, which made it possible to continue work on the Revolution’s outcomes codification.6 The Assembly concentrated on anew way of organization of all French settlements in India. The project aimed “to form the Colonial Assembly of representatives of French colonies in India”7 was adopted at one session held in the Capuchin Church on 5 June 1791. The Assembly was designed to have 21 members consisting of: fifteen representatives from Pondicherry, three from Chandernagore, one from Yanam (fr.Yanaon), one from Karaikal (also Karikal or Karaikkal) and one from Mahe (fr.Mahé). The office term was set for ten years.8 Additionally, one independent General Assembly would have arisen in each of the factories consisting of all French citizens aged 25 and above who had lived in India minimum two years. That Assembly was supposed to elect one representative for the Colonial Assembly. The session also agreed provisions applying to additional members from each of the settlements to substitute arespective representative during their temporary absence. One-half members of the Colonial Assembly were due to be elected every year. Since opposition coming from some of the colonies against joining the new body was expected, the Constitution should have included the time limit for that entrance. Provided no representative had been elected in due time by the General Assembly, the Colonial Assembly would have had to add the Assembly to by respective representatives from Pondicherry. The Colonial Assembly constituted in that way was entrusted with legislative powers delegated to each of the colonies according to adecree issued by the General Assembly on 7 March and 8 March 1790. The executive power was granted to agovernor, the juridical power remained unchanged. What was also clearly declared was that no new taxes could be levied unless approved by the Colonial Assembly.9 The meeting of the Colonial Assembly was held on 6 July 1791. However, only representatives from Pondicherry arrived. Therefore, other colonies were asked in letters sent on 11 July to send their delegates as well. Nevertheless, no answers but from Jamal and Karaikal arrived. Mahe sent no delegates, Chandernagore had completely refused to respect the authority of this body. 6 S.P.SEN, The French in India (1765–1816), Calcutta 1958, p.439. 7 Quoted by GOBALAKICHENANE M, p.54. 8 M.V.LABERNADIE, La révolution et les établissements français dans lʼInde, 1790–1793, Paris— Pondichéry 1930, pp. 79–80. 9 SEN, p.440.
64 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2018 THE CONFLICT WITH CHANDERNAGORE AND ÎLE DE FRANCE It was consequence that resulted from events occurring in that colony, which had not been developing favourably for their superiors in Pondicherry.10 Governor Mottet sent from Pondicherry arrived at the site on 5 November 1790, but would not receive friendly welcome. As he penned to the Governor of Pondicherry, de Fresne, he had had to appear before the Revolutionary Committee as if he had “practically been acriminal”, and had undergone afew-day interrogation concerning objectives of his mission. Finally, the Committee agreed upon his appointment as the executive head, but with powers limited to minimum. According to the new Constitution written for this colony and supported by the General Assembly from Île de France, all matters of financial, police and judicial character were subjected to the Committee’s approval. Mottet was not allowed to be in touch with the Governors of Danish or Dutch colonies in Bengal, but was required to only demand compensation for the Chandernagor ship. He was allowed to exchange correspondence with the Governor of Pondicherry otherwise to enforce the Revolutionary Committee’s laws. Pretending to obey, under the pretence of holding talks about salt and opium with the British, Mottet left for Calcutta (todayʼs Kolkata) where he settled down and would be sending detailed information on the situation to de Fresne. He was allowed to stay there as long as the French king would decide on how to solve problems in the colony.11 In January 1791, disputes erupted among the Revolutionary Committee’s members in Chandernagore. Some of them revolted against Chairperson Richemont’s tyranny. They were accused of conspiracy against the regime and sentenced to prison. However the majority of them managed to escape. Mottet believed that the law could not be enforced otherwise but with the use of violence, and vainly asked Governor-General Cornwallis to grant apermit allowing French troops to cross the British territory to get to Chandernagore.12 On 12 February 1791, Mottet was replaced by Colonel de Canaple, anew “Commander of the French Nation’s Matters” in Chandernagore. However this French agent would not even dare to enter the town. He stayed in Calcutta, where he was acknowledged by the establishment of the Presidency. De Canaple devoted himself to questions that related to salt and opium, and kept on dealing in the spirit of the French Revolution’s legal achievements. One French ship with 30 slaves on board was seized on the Hughli River in the Diamond Harbour at the beginning of April 1791. Colonel de Canaple was asked to set them free. He accommodated that request. Mr. George Wheatley even received 1,200 rupees in compensation for discovery and liberation of those slaves in accordance with the Proclamation of 22 July 1789.13 After Colonel Canaple died from heart attack on 5 August 1791, English officers were sent to accompany him on his last journey in tribute. Contrary to that, while he 10 WANNER, Pondicherry, pp. 62–63. 11 SEN, pp. 465–466. 12 Ibidem, p.466. 13 S.H.ASKARI (Ed.), Fort William-India House Correspondence and Other Contemporary Papers Relating Thereto (Foreign, Secret and Political), further only FWIHC, Vol. XVI, Delhi 1976, Foreign Letter to Court, 17 March 1791, pp. 367–369, par. 2, 6, 10.
MIcHAL WANNER 65 had been dying, the Chandernagore’s Committee had sent adeputation led by Longchamp and Ricard to Île de France to complain about his manners.14 As the Revolutionary Committee in Chandernagore refused to respect the Colonial Assembly authority, aheated dispute erupted even between Pondicherry and Île de France. The Colonial Assembly in Pondicherry protested against the intervention from Île de France in the Chandernagore’s matters, and refused to subordinate to the Île de France Government claiming that Pondicherry itself possessed the authority over all French settlements in India. On the other hand, the Chandernagore Committee called upon the Pondicherry garrison to revolt against Governor de Fresne’s reactionary government. It was scornfully declined.15 After Canaple’s death, de Cossigny, the Governor of French settlements easterly of the Cape of Good Hope, appointed Mr Gautier and Mr Yvon to posts of the French King’s Commissioners charged with the settlement of issues in Chandernagore. They were recognized as Commissioners even by the British East India Company. Reluctantly accepting the information about that appointment, Governor de Fresne expressed his indignation. He presented his in-depth report on the situation in Chandernagore and the correspondence with Governor-General de Cossigny as to those matters to the General Assembly. The Pondicherry Assembly issued aresolution on 7 August 1792 protesting against interventions from Île de France in its authorities. The Assembly argued that the National Assembly in Paris had recognized representatives of factories to be representatives of French India, and that the settlement would not recognize the sovereignty of Île de France over that colony any more. To the contrary, they declared absolute control over all Indian settlements. Deputed by the Assembly, de Fresne sent Chairperson Fumeron to Bengal to act as “an agent who had been entrusted with supervising the national interests”, but not to hold his post as Commandant there. His task was to make the Chandernagore Committee see reason and to elect representatives to the Colonial Assembly.16 As soon as all of the Commissioners charged with the task to settle down the situation in Chandernagore had arrived in Bengal in mid-September, adispute as to the powers instantly erupted among Fumeron, Gautier and Yvon. In addition, all of whom demanded 300 crates of opium from the British, which constituted ayearly share of French company in Bengal. The Bengal Council was caught in atricky situation. Following slight hesitation, the Council decided in favour of communication with Fumeron on 5 October, since Mr. de Fresne “had recognized Mr. Charpentier to be his superior, but it was his own decision in this case since Mr. Charpentier’s task is to supervise transaction accounts in all French settlements in India”. Thus the crates with opium along with Colonel de Canaple’s property were handed over to Fumeron.17 It constituted aconsiderable achievement for both Fumeron and de Fresne with whom the British would remain in contact through letters. Vice versa de Fresne informed 14 SEN, p.468. 15 Ibidem, pp. 440–441. 16 Ibidem, pp. 468–469. 17 FWIHC, Vol. XVI, Foreign Letter to Court, 17 March 1791, p.404, par. 29; FWIHC, Vol. XVI, Foreign Letter to Court, 25 November 1791, pp. 408–410, par. 14–27.
66 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2018 them in letter of 20 August 1791 about the replacement of the French flag, and wanted them to disseminate this information in the local British press.18 Chandernagore lost its primary source of income, yet the residents were persuaded to hold on. The General Assembly in Chandernagore enacted the Constitution on 6 November 1792, which declared the colony’s independence from Pondicherry in addition to other things, however, formally referred to the authority of the French King (who had been already deposed those times). Although it was the King’s representative who was supposed to be the head of the factory, the real power was hold by the General Assembly. The meetings of the Assembly were due once ayear. However, it was the Administrative Assembly (Assemblèe Administrative) called every three months that ruled in the meanwhile; the routine duties during the intermediate times were performed by the Directorate (Directorie). The Constitution had also instituted two Courts, one for the French another for the natives. Both of them were to be presided over by aFrenchman, associate judges at the Court for the natives were supposed to be elected by Indian residents of the colony. Commissioner Gautier returned to Île de France in December and left Yvone in Chandernagore to be the Commandant there. Richemont was dispatched to Île de France by the General Assembly to report on the terror from Pondicherry side. Governor Cossigny sent aformal command to de Fresne to dismiss Fumeron. His departure, however, delayed due to Yvon’s death and changes in posts of Governor-General. Cossigny was replaced by Malartic, who confirmed Fumeron’s dismissal and appointed Gautier as the new Commandant of Chandernagore. Fumeron left Bengal in October 1792, and went back to Pondicherry, where he re-assumed the position of the President of the Colonial Assembly. Also Gautier was in the town that time, and would never leave the colony due to the British siege. Thus the constant chaos reigned in Chandernagore.19 THE SITUATION IN PONDICHERRY The Colonial Assembly in Pondicherry had mostly worked in accord with the Governor; basically, peace had been prevailing in the town. What we know from sources is that the unveiling of astatue to the arrival of Jesuits at the town took place on 20 June 1791. Prominent Tamil families would have grandiose wedding celebrations; the one held on 10 July 1791 was attended by Madam de Fresne, who acting as aproxy for the Governor danced there to “tones of violins”. Celebrations of de Fresne’s children christening were held on 14 July 1791 and were accompanied by cannon salvos and aceremonial Te Deum.20 The same day the Pondicherry residents celebrated the 2nd anni18 Ibidem, p.409, par. 21. 19 V.J.TARAPOVERALA, Fort William-India House Correspondence and Other Contemporary Papers Relating Thereto (Foreign, Political and Secret), Vol. XVII (further only FWIHC, Vol. XVII), 1792–1795, Delhi 1955, Foreign Letters to Court, 25.January 1792, p.149, par. 2; 8 April 1792, p.152, par. 11 and 12 December 1792, p.156, par. 10. 20 GOBALAKICHENANE, p.55.
MIcHAL WANNER 67 versary of the Fall of the Bastille and the French nation’s resurrection. They swore an oath of loyalty towards the Constitution, next there was amilitary parade, and agreat patriotic celebration with dinner for 1,000 boarders was held on Place des Armes. One meticulous Tamil chronicler also penned: “that 1,500 bottles of wine were uncorked”.21 The new French Tricolour flag was ceremonially hoisted on 4 August. Soldiers chanted “Vive la Nation! Vice le Loi! Vive le Roi!”22 The ceremonial Te Deum accompanied celebrations to mark the new Constitution on 9 April 1792 as well as the revived civic oath vowing “faithfulness to the nation, to the law, to the King” on 14 July 1792. The latter was accompanied by cannon salvos and a“general and patriotic banquet”.23 Yet the period was affected by afew disquieting events and phenomena. First and foremost, it was aremaining awkward economic situation, ashortage of foods occurred in the town, and the situation tended to worsen.24 Sepoys began to publicly express their discontent on 5 April 1791. Soldiers were not satisfied with Duplessis, their new Commander, and would complain about too hard drill, undeserved punishments and no mercenary pays.25 They would cast aside weapons, leave the barracks and stroll around the town. De Fresne was bound to demonstrate his skills in art of persuasion. He explained them the reasons for the replacement of troops’ Commander as otherwise it would have had to come from France, so that it had not been too clever to commit aserious mistake of dropping their guns. The dispute was settled to all of the parties’ satisfaction.26 It was also escalating tension between the white population and Tamils that was growing. The detained Tamil notables were gradually released between 9 March and 16 April 1792 some of them due to illness, others upon paying a100-pagod fine. They restored their petition activity on 6 July demanding the entrance into the public authorities. Actively campaigning against Governor de Fresne, they exerted to win the locals over and would achieve apparent success.27 However, as early as on 13 July they were accused of “not respecting customs” by Mayor Coulon, who began to call them the extreme left or right wings. Outbreaks of public disorders began to occur on streets on 22 August caused by fights between the white population and Tamils, which de Fresne would tackle with firing into the air and closing gates. That affair was followed by investigation, some of the Tamil leaders were arrested, and martial law was declared in French and Tamil languages on 31 August.28 The Colonial Assembly, which entirely comprised “people wearing hats”, that means the white, held the first meeting on 31 August under armed guard. The first step taken 21 Ibidem, p.145. 22 Veranaickerʼs Diary, in: M.GOBALAKICHENANE, La révolution de Pondichéry dʼaprés Viranaicker II., in: C.WANQUET— B.JULLIAN (Eds.), Révolution Francaise et Océan Indién: prémices, héritages et déviances, Paris 1996, p.227. 23 Quoted by GOBALAKICHENANE, La revolution française, p.61. 24 Ibidem, p.58. 25 LABERNADIE, p.71. 26 GOBALAKICHENANE, La revolution francaise, p.52. 27 D.TAFFIN, Citoyens et Malabars à Pondichéry pendant la révolution française (1750–1793), in: C.WANQUET— B.JULLIAN (eds.), Révolution Francaise et Océan Indién: prémices, héritages et déviances. Paris 1996, pp. 242–243. 28 Veranaickerʼs Diary, in: GOBALAKICHENANE, La révolution de Pondichéry, pp. 227–228.
68 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2018 by the Assembly was 29 articles specified on 3 August 1791, which would constitute the basis for anew constitution for French settlements in India. The Constitution was practically identical to that issued by the General Assembly on 5 July. One interesting item was increase in the Colonial Assembly by four representatives of Indian population provided amatter relating to them had been expected to be raised. They were not elected but appointed by the Tamil leaders. In this regard, the Assembly regressed more or less to the old regime practice, which had concentrated on the control of town residents on one hand, and on the preservation of the local customs on the other hand.29 All-member Assembly elections were due once in two years and sessions once aweek, on Thursday, and were to be open for the public.30 One of the reasons behind those minor concessions to the indigenous population was the economic situation. De Fresne had no option but to resuscitate the trade in foods by the tax abolishment. At one and the same time, he addressed the Tamil leaders in the name of all residents and explaining that Malabars31 “are gaining advantages from the new Constitution and are given preferential treatment due to the French flag” he asked them for financial aid. The castes’ leaders would hand in 8,000 rupees by December 1791, which would constitute about ahalf of the expected amount.32 The Colonial Assembly made attempt to introduce the civil constitution for the Church in September 1792. However, it was adopted by not more than two Capuchins and two Jesuits. The rest of the clergy left for Madras.33 Another mission pursued to re-organize the Town Council. Popular Count de Civrac was elected Mayor on 3 September 1791. The representatives were reduced to four at the same time. In addition, the Council had been dealing with arequest for establishing anew National Guard. Some clashes between the Guard and agroup of Topasses erupted on 20 September. On 15 October, residents presented apetition that demanded the Guard consisting of Europeans and European parents’ children, which led to angry protests by Topasses.34 Consequently, Civrac halted the establishment of the National Guard until “the National Assembly decides on ranks for the members of single classes that compose residents of this town”.35 The Assembly elected two representatives from India to anew legislative assembly in Paris. The persons picked to execute this mission were Moracin and atrader from Bordeaux named Corbin who had adopt the lead role in agitation for ending the monopoly of the Company for Indies and China.36 29 GOBALAKICHENANE, La revolution française, p.59. 30 TAFFIN, p.243. 31 The Tamil people were commonly called Malabars in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was on the basis of the linguistic ties of the Dravidian languages occurring on both coasts of South India. 32 GOBALAKICHENANE, La revolution française, p.58. 33 SEN, p, 442, 34 LABERNADIE, p.96. 35 Quoted ibidem, p.243. 36 GOBALAKICHENANE, La revolution française, p.60.
MIcHAL WANNER 69 THE ARRIVAL OF CIVIL COMMISSIONERS FROM FRANCE Meanwhile in France, the revolution aroused new interest in colonies. In October 1791, the National Assembly issued the decision to send 600 infantrymen and 140 artillerymen to Pondicherry to extend the garrison in the town to 1,000 European soldiers; 1,000 sepoys corps; and two companies of artillerymen. Soldiers in the town amounted to not more than 400 until the units’ arrival in September 1792. Also Engineer de Phélines, who had been entrusted with building fortification, arrived with the troops. 37 What is more, in January 1792, the National Assembly decided to send four Civil Commissioners— Boucher, Tirol, Lescallier and Dumourier to supervise the new organization in eastern colonies. They set out on journey to Île de France in February 1792. The two of them, Lescallier and Dumourier, were supposed to continue from the Mascarene Islands to “Indian peninsula and to Bengal”. 38 They arrived in Port Louis in July 1792.39 News about the arrival of two Civil Commissioners was greeted with enthusiasm by the Pondicherry residents and the Colonial Assembly. The residents were looking forward to presenting their outcomes as to the re-organization of the French settlements in India. They were proud of the solid legal grounds the reforms had been given when approved by the National Assembly. Lescallier arrived in Pondicherry on 30 September 1792. Dumourier stayed on Île de France several months to finish his task.40 Lescallier received awarm welcome in Pondicherry, however, took aconservative attitude towards the enthusiasm of the locals. He had already had direct experience of the colonial administration as he had worked as an officer on St.Domingo Island in the Caribbean. The first thing he pushed through was the method of electing anew Colonial Assembly according to the law and the French Constitution of 1791. The new Assembly was created to have 12 members, and the equal number of substitutes only voted by the active residents. Electees had to be French-born or become aFrench national in accord with the French Constitution of 1791, aged 25 or above, to have property worth 500 rupees, reside in the colony minimum one year or pay amonth’s rent, which was 5 rupees for minimum two-year residence. The list of active residents was compiled in November 1792 and comprised 214 names. Yet the committee of representatives mentioned the discrimination against “diverse classes of people”41 in the letter to the National Assembly, and later on, the list of active residents was added to by 14 names of Topasses who had gained avoting right (suffrage) subjected to these requirements: They had to be born in alegitimate marriage of freeborn parents, to own the property worth minimum 500 rupees or pay month’s rent of minimum 5 rupees, they had to be reasonable good at speaking and reading French. Other Pondicherry residents were not considered to be the King’s subjects but “ones located under the French flag protection”.42 37 SEN, p.442. 38 Quoted by GOBALAKICHENANE, La révolution de Pondichéry, p.230. 39 SEN, p.443. 40 Ibidem. 41 Quoted by TAFFIN, p.244. 42 Quoted ibidem, p.245.
76 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2018 The development in Pondicherry was relatively calm; Governor de Fresne managed to flexibly apply the outcomes of the first stage of the Revolution despite ongoing economic crisis, but also due to the fact that Pondicherry was not dependent on slavery work, like e.g. the Mascarene Islands. The development in Pondicherry was mostly about satisfying the requirements of democratization, and was free of revolutionary excesses. In principle, the loyalty towards the King, and the law and authorities in Paris remained with exception of the unpopular Company for Indies and China (Compagnie des Indes et la Chine). The disillusionment with the Paris Government’s attitude and the French administration on Île de France during the siege together with the information about the King’s arrest and his execution accepted with certain confusion resulted in the adoption of anti-revolutionary attitude after the surrender. Only attempts of Pondicherry administration to re-establish the privileged position of the colony met with resistance among the settlements in India. It sparked outrage in other factories ranging from the passive resistance to the heated opposition in Chandernagore, therefore, it could not be crowned with success. In principle, the crowds of Indian population, even the indigenous population in French colonies, remained beyond the events. Ideas of the French Revolution only affected arelatively closely-defined educated class, language-wise and partially culturally and economically related to the French administration. The masses of the local craftsmen living in the town and its surroundings remained unaffected by that process. On the whole, the French colonial administration flexibly managed to incorporate Topasses into the new regime, but encountered unsolvable limits in the case of Tamil notables undoubtedly not only due to race prejudices. Accepting them as residents constituted asign of potential recognition of all indigenous population in the factory to be citizens of French colonies. Such asolution could have completely changed the character of existing orders. This fact resulted in an extremely cautious, ambivalent and rather negative attitude of the colony administration towards the Tamil requirements, and seemingly conservative adherence to the principles of the old regime in the local environment. French India simply could not halt being French. On the other hand, the local French elites knew the value of this population for France, therefore, minimum individuals attempted to find asort of conciliatory modus vivendi taking into account the needs of the indigenous population under “the French flag protection”. For that reason, they were perceived as the population of another country and another culture. They could not become French nationals, however, their interests had to be taken into account due to the important position in the French factory, at least when something regarded directly themselves. Indian Princes held revolutionary ideas, as expected, completely strange and incomprehensible.73 The only thing they awaited from the French was military assistance against the British or the local enemies; however, they would be never lent ahand those times. The presence of French adventurers in their service could change hardly anything. France was deeply immersed in its own inside problems and so was not able to clearly formulate the foreign policy towards the Asian powers. Its attitude 73 PALLI, p.256.
MIcHAL WANNER 77 towards India nowise dramatically differed from that of the old regime in the form that had stabilized after the Carnatic Wars. So the fall of Pondicherry did not result from the consequences of the French Revolution, but from the presumed worries over the French re-expansion in India and the peril of British concerns in that area. Therefore, the roots of the British action should be retrieved in the geopolitical contexts of the previous development. In fact, the British were aware of the French weakness. As Governor General Mornington had stated as early as in June 1794 “French influence in India, thank God, is nearly eliminated!”74 But it had caused no change in his policy using the French Revolution as pretence for eliminating the remains of French influence and his own enemies in the subcontinent. So the French Revolution indirectly helped the British expansion in India.75 The only man who had indicated effort to constitute the long-term expansion policy of France in India in that revolutionary era was Napoleon Bonaparte. His effort might be best documented by his response to Tipu Sultan dating from, perhaps, 29 January 1799: “You have already been informed about my arrival in the shores of the Red Sea with the numerous and unbeatable army with the aim to liberate you from the iron yoke of England. Ieagerly accept this opportunity to tell you my intention, when Iheard about your political situation on my journey across Muscat and Mokka. Ieven wish you could send me to Suez or Cairo an intelligent person who is having your trust Iwould be able to talk with.”76 Nevertheless, he had no concrete plan either. Only when he rose to power asort of friendship would be re-established, which would partially restore the awareness of French people in the Indian subcontinent at the end of the 18th century in addition to the policy of French adventurers in Indian courts, and would restore the local political development of thought of both enemy sides of the Napoleonic Wars. The surrender of Pondicherry in August of 1793 finished along chapter of Anglo-French contest in India that had started in the era of Joseph François Dupleix ahalf century earlier. The capital city of French India remained occupied for another 23 years, and when it was given back in December 1816, the French return to the completely different environment. France definitely recognized the British sovereignty in India by agreements dating from 1814 and 1815, and took back its dependencies on the basis of the clear affirmation that no fortification would be built and would not keep any military troops. So Pondicherry definitely lost its importance in the world history. 74 M.MONTGOMERY (Ed), The Despatches, Minutes and Correspondence of the Marquess Wellesley, Vol. II, London 1836, pp. 1836–1837. 75 M.RAPPORT, The International Repercussions of the French Revolution, in: P.MCPHEE, ACompanion of the French Revolution, Chichester 2013, pp. 381–394, link p.394. 76 The letter was never delivered to Tipu because the British captured it in Aden. R.B.MOWAT, The Diplomacy of Napoleon, London 1924, p.58, details in M.SHAMA RAD, Modern Mysore (from the beginning to 1868), Bangalore 1936, pp. 178–180; H.H.DODWELL, The Cambridge History of India, Vol. V, New Delhi 1929, pp. 327–328.