Anglo-French Rivalry
Anglo-French Rivalry: The Three Carnatic Wars
Introduction
The Anglo-French rivalry in India during the 18th century marked a crucial turning point in the subcontinent’s history. What began as commercial competition between two European trading companies evolved into a fierce political and military struggle that ultimately determined the colonial fate of India. The three Carnatic Wars (1746-1763) fought between the British East India Company and the French East India Company not only showcased European military prowess but also exposed the political fragmentation and military weakness of Indian rulers. This rivalry, deeply rooted in European conflicts, ultimately established British supremacy in India while reducing France to a marginal trading power.
Background: Origins of the Anglo-French Rivalry
European Context
The Anglo-French rivalry in India was essentially an extension of the long-standing hostility between England and France in Europe. The conflict reflected broader struggles including the War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748) and the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). These European wars inevitably spilled over into their colonial possessions, transforming India into a theater for their imperial ambitions.
Arrival in India and Initial Objectives
The English East India Company, established in 1600 under a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I, had already established a strong presence in India by the time the French East India Company was formed in 1664 under Cardinal Richelieu and King Louis XIV. Initially, both companies came with purely commercial objectives—to monopolize the lucrative spice trade, acquire Indian textiles, and maximize profits. However, as the Mughal Empire declined after Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, creating a power vacuum across the subcontinent, both companies recognized opportunities for territorial expansion and political influence.
Favorable Conditions in South India
South India emerged as the principal arena for Anglo-French conflict for several strategic reasons. First, the region had become the main center of French activities with Pondicherry as their capital. Second, the French had begun wielding considerable influence in the neighboring states of Hyderabad and Mysore. Third, western India was dominated by the powerful Marathas, while eastern India remained under the strict control of Alivardi Khan, making these regions unsuitable for European expansion. Finally, the death of Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah I in 1748 created succession disputes in Hyderabad, providing perfect opportunities for European intervention.
Fundamental Reasons Behind the Anglo-French Rivalry
Commercial Competition
Both companies sought to establish trading monopolies and eliminate competition to maximize profits. The lucrative spice trade, particularly pepper and cinnamon, along with Indian textiles including cotton and silk, attracted intense European interest. Control over trade routes between India and Europe became a matter of economic survival for both powers.
Political Fragmentation of India
The decline of the Mughal Empire and the emergence of weak regional powers created a political vacuum that European companies were eager to exploit. Indian rulers proved incapable of safeguarding European commercial interests, prompting the companies to empower themselves militarily. The absence of a strong centralized authority made territorial acquisition easier.
Naval Superiority and Military Technology
European companies possessed superior military technology, including advanced artillery, firearms, and disciplined infantry units. The British particularly enjoyed naval supremacy over maritime trade routes, giving them decisive advantages. This technological edge was dramatically demonstrated when small, well-trained European forces repeatedly defeated much larger Indian armies.
Succession Disputes as Opportunities
The death of Nizam-ul-Mulk in 1748 triggered succession disputes in both Hyderabad (between Nasir Jung and Muzaffar Jung) and the Carnatic (between Anwaruddin Khan’s son Muhammad Ali and Chanda Sahib). These disputes provided perfect opportunities for European intervention, as both the British and French supported rival claimants to secure political influence and territorial concessions.
The First Carnatic War (1746-1748)
Causes and Background
The First Carnatic War was essentially the Indian theater of the War of Austrian Succession that had erupted in Europe in 1740. France and Britain found themselves on opposite sides, leading their trading companies in India to vie for supremacy. Although France, conscious of its relatively weaker position in India, did not favor extending hostilities to the subcontinent, the English navy under Commodore Curtis Bennett seized some French ships, provoking French retaliation.
Key Personalities 
Joseph François Dupleix served as the French Governor-General of Pondicherry and emerged as the architect of French ambitions in India. He had raised an army of Indian sepoys under French officers and possessed imperialistic designs on the subcontinent. Major Stringer Lawrence represented British military interests, while Anwaruddin Khan, the Nawab of the Carnatic, initially attempted to maintain neutrality.
Course of the War
In 1745, a British naval attack threatened Pondicherry, but Dupleix successfully defended against it. The French received reinforcements from Mauritius under Admiral La Bourdonnais and captured Madras from the British in 1746. This seizure triggered a bitter dispute between Dupleix and La Bourdonnais—Dupleix wanted to hand the town to the Nawab as compensation for violating his neutrality decree, while La Bourdonnais wanted to ransom it back to the British.
The Nawab of Carnatic, Anwaruddin Khan, disturbed by this violation of his territory’s neutrality, sent an army of 10,000 men under his son Mahfuz Khan to besiege the French in Madras. However, a small French army under Captain Paradise defeated this much larger Indian force at the Battle of St. Thome near the Adyar River in 1746. This battle exposed the critical weakness of Indian armies compared to well-disciplined European forces equipped with modern weapons.
The British attempted to recapture Madras and attack Pondicherry but suffered heavy losses.
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748)
The war ended with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (also called the Treaty of Aachen) in October 1748, which concluded both the War of Austrian Succession in Europe and the First Carnatic War. Under this treaty, Madras was returned to the British in exchange for the French fortress of Louisbourg in North America. The treaty also confirmed Maria Theresa as the Austrian ruler.
Significance and Impact
The First Carnatic War proved to be an eye-opener for Europeans in India. It revealed that even a small, disciplined army could easily defeat a much larger Indian army. The war brought out the importance of naval forces in Anglo-French conflicts in the Deccan. It also highlighted the role of Indian allies in European strategies, with both powers relying on support from local rulers. Most importantly, the war was inconclusive in determining European supremacy—it merely set the stage for more intense conflicts to follow.
The Second Carnatic War (1749-1754)
Background and Context
Though the general war between Britain and France had ended in Europe, their rivalry in trade and territorial possessions in India continued unabated. The First Carnatic War had revealed the weakness of Indian administration and armies, engendering greed for territorial expansion in both companies. Dupleix, through his experience, evolved the strategy of using the well-disciplined French army to intervene in mutual quarrels of Indian princes, supporting one against another to secure monetary, commercial, or territorial favors from the victor. This approach represented the first example of what would later be formalized as the subsidiary alliance system in India.
The Succession Crises
In Hyderabad: The death of Asaf Jah Nizam-ul-Mulk in 1748 ignited a succession war between his son Nasir Jung and grandson Muzaffar Jung. Nasir Jung claimed the throne as the rightful son, while many believed Muzaffar Jung was his grandfather’s favorite and designated heir. The Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah had bestowed the title “Nasir Jung” upon Ahmad Ali Khan, and Emperor Ahmad Shah Bahadur appointed him Subedar of the Deccan.
In the Carnatic: Simultaneously, Chanda Sahib (Hussain Dost Khan) conspired against Nawab Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan, claiming the Nawabship of Carnatic. After Anwaruddin’s predecessor’s death, a power struggle emerged between Chanda Sahib and Anwaruddin’s son Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah.
Alliance Formation
The French Governor Dupleix seized this opportunity by allying with Chanda Sahib and Muzaffar Jung. The British, led by Governor Thomas Saunders and supported by military strategist Robert Clive, backed Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah in the Carnatic and Nasir Jung in Hyderabad.
The Battle of Ambur (1749)
On August 3, 1749, the allied forces of Dupleix, Chanda Sahib, and Muzaffar Jung met Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan’s army at Ambur. Despite Anwaruddin’s forces creating a formidable defensive stance around their howdahs, they were outnumbered three to one. The disciplined French infantry forces led by De Bussy completely reversed the course of battle.
The aging 77-year-old Nawab Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan was shot and killed while commanding his forces from a howdah. The battle convincingly demonstrated the superiority of European arms, methods of discipline, and infantry warfare. Following this victory, Muzaffar Jang and Chanda Sahib victoriously entered Arcot, with Chanda Sahib becoming the new Nawab of the Carnatic. Muhammad Ali fled south to Trichinopoly (modern Tiruchirappalli) and sought British assistance.
French Ascendancy
Following their victories, the French-backed candidates ascended to power—Muzaffar Jung became Nizam of Hyderabad (though he was killed in 1751 by Afghans and replaced by his uncle Salabat Jung), while Chanda Sahib controlled the Carnatic. Both rulers rewarded the French with extensive territories and significant monetary gifts. The French had transformed Indian states into client states, marking the zenith of French power in India.
The Siege of Trichinopoly (1751-1752)
In March 1751, Chanda Sahib, with French support, moved south from Arcot to besiege Muhammad Ali in the Fort of Trichinopoly. The siege operations were principally conducted by French contingents, first under D’Auteuil and later under Jacques Law. The British in Madras sent additional troops to assist Muhammad Ali, but they were defeated at Valikondapuram and retreated to Trichinopoly.
Robert Clive’s Audacious Strategy: The Siege of Arcot (1751)
Facing the prospect of losing Trichinopoly, the British authorities were preparing to surrender. However, Robert Clive, then a young commissary officer, proposed an audacious diversionary tactic to Governor Thomas Saunders. He suggested attacking Arcot, the capital of Chanda Sahib, forcing him to lift the siege at Trichinopoly.
With only 200 British soldiers, 300 sepoys, three small cannons, and eight officers (four of whom were civilians), Clive marched toward Arcot on August 26, 1751. Through a series of forced marches under extremely rainy conditions, they reached Arcot by August 31. The garrison of 1,000 Indian soldiers, hearing of the march and mistaking the approaching force for a much larger army, abandoned the fort without resistance. Clive occupied Arcot without firing a single shot.
As expected, Chanda Sahib dispatched 4,000 Indian soldiers and 100 French troops (along with elephants) under his son Raza Saheb to recapture Arcot. Despite being vastly outnumbered, Clive refused to surrender and prepared to defend the fort. The siege lasted over 50 days, during which Clive’s garrison faced constant attacks. When water was cut off, they used a reservoir within the fort; food stocks lasted three months for the small defending force.
A massive assault on November 14, 1751 (Muharram day), resulted in 400 casualties for the attackers, who then withdrew. Clive’s successful defense became legendary in British military history. Muhammad Ali bestowed upon him the title “Sabit Jung” (proven in battle). This victory significantly damaged Chanda Sahib’s power and marked a turning point in British fortunes.
Subsequently, Muhammad Ali secured allies from Tanjore, Mysore, and the Marathas. British reinforcements under Stringer Lawrence arrived, and the besiegers at Trichinopoly retreated to Srirangam, where they were eventually forced to surrender in June 1752. Chanda Sahib was captured and executed by Muhammad Ali.
Recall of Dupleix and Treaty of Pondicherry (1754)
The French authorities, irritated by the heavy financial losses Dupleix’s expansionist policies involved, decided to recall him in 1754. It appears Dupleix never properly communicated his audacious schemes to his masters in Paris, who first learned of his plans in October 1753—after his recall had already been determined.
Charles Robert Godeheu succeeded Dupleix as French Governor-General in August 1754. Godeheu adopted a policy of negotiations with the British and signed the Treaty of Pondicherry on December 26, 1754, with Thomas Saunders of the British East India Company. Under this treaty:
Both companies agreed not to interfere in the quarrels of native princes
Each party retained territories actually occupied at the time of the treaty
Political activities were to cease, with strictly commercial operations going forward
Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah was recognized as the Nawab of the Carnatic
Implications of the Second Carnatic War
The war demonstrated that European support had become essential for Indian authority, rather than vice versa. It became evident that Indian rulers could no longer maintain power independently—they had become dependent on European military backing. The British emerged in a stronger position, having established Muhammad Ali as Nawab while preventing French territorial consolidation.
The Third Carnatic War (1757-1763)
Background and Causes
In 1756, the Seven Years’ War erupted in Europe, once again pitting England and France against each other. This global conflict, driven by Austria’s determination to reclaim Silesia, rejuvenated the Anglo-French rivalry and led to extensive military engagements across Europe, North America, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. Despite the Treaty of Pondicherry’s intention to prevent further hostilities, the Seven Years’ War inevitably extended to India, making the Third Carnatic War essentially the Indian theater of this global conflict.
The war was also fueled by continued Franco-British tensions over colonial possessions and trade routes. By this time, the British had significantly strengthened their position through territorial gains, particularly after the Battle of Plassey in 1757, which gave them control over the wealthy Bengal region.
Financial and Strategic Disparities
A crucial factor distinguishing this war from previous conflicts was the dramatically different financial positions of the two powers. The British conquest of Bengal in 1757 provided them with inexhaustible wealth and material resources. Bengal’s fertile land, thriving trade, excellent harbor at Calcutta, and navigable rivers offered the British both economic prosperity and strategic advantages. They could now continuously fund military operations by collecting Bengal’s revenues and sending reinforcements to fight in Madras.
In stark contrast, the French were suffering from severe financial problems. Their minor settlements at Pondicherry, Mahe, and Chandernagore provided woefully insufficient resources. The French base at Mauritius was unequipped and distant. As V.A. Smith commented: “Neither Alexander the Great nor Napoleon could have conquered the empire of India by beginning with Pondicherry as a base and contending with a power which held Bengal and command of the Sea”.
Major Engagements and British Successes
Capture of Chandernagore (1757): After the Battle of Plassey, British forces under Robert Clive seized the French settlement of Chandernagore in Bengal in March 1757. This was a significant blow to French influence and demonstrated British naval superiority.
Battle of Plassey (1757): Though primarily part of the broader British struggle in Bengal, Clive’s victory against the Nawab of Bengal and his French allies at Plassey in June 1757 had profound implications for the Carnatic theater. It strengthened British resources, morale, and financial capacity to fight the French.
Siege of Madras (1758-1759): Count de Lally, the French commander, launched a siege on Madras (Chennai), a critical British stronghold, in 1758. Despite initial successes, Lally’s forces failed to capture the city, partly due to lack of adequate supplies and support. The French were hampered by a lack of naval support and chronic funding shortages.
The Decisive Battle of Wandiwash (1760)
The Battle of Wandiwash on January 22, 1760, proved to be the decisive engagement of the Third Carnatic War. The French army, commanded by Count de Lally, attempted to regain the fort of Vandavasi (Wandiwash) in Tamil Nadu. According to 19th-century accounts, the French deployed 300 European cavalry, 2,250 European infantry, 1,300 sepoys, 3,000 Marathas, and 16 artillery pieces. The British forces under Lieutenant-General Sir Eyre Coote fielded approximately 80 European horses, 250 native horses, 1,900 European infantry, 2,100 sepoys, and 26 artillery pieces.
Despite similar force sizes, the British decisively defeated the French. The French were burdened by lack of naval support, insufficient funds, and poor strategic coordination. This victory effectively destroyed French power in southern India and ended their hopes of regaining control over the Carnatic region.
Aftermath and Fall of Pondicherry
Following Wandiwash, the British captured Chetpattu, Tirunomalai, Tindivanam, and Perumukkal. The French in South India, under Marquis de Bussy-Castelnau, were restricted to Pondicherry. British forces laid siege to Pondicherry, which fell on January 22, 1761, after eight months of resistance. The French lost all their Indian possessions including Pondicherry, Mahe, Gingee, and Karaikal.
Treaty of Paris (1763)
The Third Carnatic War, along with the global Seven Years’ War, concluded with the Treaty of Paris on February 10, 1763. Under this treaty’s provisions regarding India:
Pondicherry and Chandernagore were returned to France
However, the French were barred from fortifying these settlements or stationing troops in them
They were permitted only to conduct trading activities
France was reduced to little more than traders in India, effectively ending French imperial ambitions in the subcontinent
The treaty marked Britain’s establishment of supremacy in India and consolidated what has been described as the “First British Empire”.
Significance of the Third Carnatic War
The war had far-reaching consequences. It eliminated French political and military influence in India, confining them to minor commercial activities. The British emerged as the dominant European power, with territorial control, financial resources, and military superiority firmly established. The collapse of the French position was one of the events that compelled France to accept unfavorable terms at Paris. Most critically, the war paved the way for the British East India Company’s transformation from a trading enterprise into the paramount power in the Indian subcontinent, laying the foundations for the British Raj that would last until 1947.
Reasons for British Victory and French Defeat
Superior Naval Power
The British possessed far superior naval strength, which proved decisive in the Anglo-French conflicts. Naval supremacy enabled them to transport cargo, win battles, and protect frontiers against colonial rivals. Their control over maritime trade routes and ability to project power globally gave them significant advantages. The French, despite having a naval base at Mauritius, found it unequipped and too distant to be effective. British dominance at sea meant they could receive reinforcements and supplies while blockading French ports.
Stronger Financial Position
Despite their imperialistic motives, the British never neglected commercial interests, ensuring they always had funds and sound financial conditions to support military campaigns. The English Company’s trade not only paid its way in India but also provided loans to the British Treasury and met military expenses. Conversely, the French subordinated commercial interests to territorial ambition, leaving their company perpetually short of funds. Success in conquests depends largely on financial backing, and the French government could not provide necessary financial help even when Dupleix had acquired territories. Dupleix spent his own fortune to meet financial needs, but this was insufficient for his ambitious undertakings.
Conquest of Bengal
The British position was dramatically strengthened by their conquest of Bengal in 1757. Bengal was one of the wealthiest and most prosperous regions of the time, with fertile land, thriving trade, and strategic importance. It provided the British with a firm operational base on the mainland and an excellent harbor useful for trade and military supplies. The Ganges and its tributaries allowed the British to reach remote areas safely by boat. They collected Bengal’s revenues and continuously sent resources and men to fight battles in Madras. In contrast, the French only controlled minor settlements, and the resources of the Deccan and Carnatic, using Pondicherry as a base, were woefully insufficient.
Superior Organization and Government System
The British East India Company operated as a private enterprise with less governmental control, allowing instant decisions without waiting for government approval. This created enthusiasm and self-confidence among company personnel. The English government, run by an enlightened oligarchy progressing toward constitutional governance, was efficient and relatively free from corruption. The French Company, by contrast, was a state concern closely controlled by the French government, hemmed in by governmental policies and delays in decision-making. The French government under Louis XV was characterized as a personal despotism run by whims of the monarch, with policies determined by mistresses and incompetent ministers. The government’s short-sighted European policy, focusing on continental ambitions rather than colonial expansion, diverted resources and energy away from India.
Continental Ambitions versus Colonial Focus
France in the 18th century remained preoccupied with continental ambitions, fighting for “natural frontiers” toward the Rhine and Italy. This expansionist European policy kept France perpetually trapped in continental wars, diverting energies away from colonial acquisitions. In the end, France gained almost nothing on the continent while losing colonial possessions. England, conversely, did not covet European territory but followed a single-minded objective of colonial expansion, achieving considerable success.
Quality of Leadership
The British benefited from high-quality leadership including Robert Clive, Warren Hastings, Stringer Lawrence, Sir Eyre Coote, and others who demonstrated strategic brilliance and commitment. Clive’s audacious capture of Arcot and his subsequent military successes became legendary. The French suffered from personal incompetence among generals such as Law, D’Ache, and Lally. Lally made critical strategic mistakes, including recalling Bussy from Hyderabad, which diminished French power in the south. As one historian noted: “Had Dupleix had at his disposal a military genius of the type of Clive, the history of India might have been altogether different”.
Policy Conflicts and Strategic Errors
Dupleix’s total engagement in political intrigue resulted in neglect of trade and commerce. His collaboration with the French government was inadequate, and he failed to communicate his plans to Paris until too late. The French government’s sudden recall of Dupleix in 1754 proved disastrous, as Godeheu’s treaty abandoned much of what Dupleix had striven to achieve. The French policy lacked consistency and long-term vision compared to the British approach.
Industrial Revolution and Commercial Enthusiasm
The Industrial Revolution occurring in England during the 18th century created tremendous enthusiasm among English merchants to collect raw materials from India and market finished goods. This generated entrepreneurial energy and made trade highly profitable. The French did not demonstrate similar enthusiasm in trade, making their commercial operations unprofitable, which in turn made them more indolent and less enterprising.
Summary
Background and Origins
European Context: Anglo-French rivalry in India was an extension of long-standing European conflicts between England and France
Companies Established: English East India Company (1600) preceded French East India Company (1664)
Initial Objectives: Both came for trade—spices, textiles, and commercial profits
Power Vacuum: Mughal Empire’s decline after Aurangzeb’s death (1707) created opportunities for European expansion
Strategic Location: South India became the main battlefield due to French influence in Pondicherry, Hyderabad, and Mysore
Fundamental Reasons Behind Anglo-French Rivalry
Political and Economic Factors
Commercial Competition: Both sought trading monopolies and elimination of competition
Political Fragmentation: Weak regional powers and absence of strong centralized authority made territorial acquisition easier
Succession Disputes: Death of Nizam-ul-Mulk (1748) triggered conflicts in Hyderabad and Carnatic, providing intervention opportunities
Military and Strategic Factors
Superior European Military Technology: Advanced artillery, firearms, and disciplined infantry units
British Naval Supremacy: Dominance over maritime trade routes
Weak Indian Armies: Indian forces proved incapable of resisting well-trained European troops
First Carnatic War (1746-1748)
Key Points
Cause: Extension of War of Austrian Succession in Europe (1740-1748)
Trigger: British navy under Commodore Curtis Bennett seized French ships
Key Personalities:
Joseph François Dupleix (French Governor-General)
Major Stringer Lawrence (British commander)
Anwaruddin Khan (Nawab of Carnatic)
Major Events
1746: French Admiral La Bourdonnais captured Madras
Battle of St. Thome (1746): Small French force under Captain Paradise defeated 10,000-strong Indian army of Nawab Anwaruddin
British Attempts: Failed to recapture Madras and attack Pondicherry
Outcome
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748): Madras returned to British in exchange for French fortress Louisbourg in North America
Significance:
Revealed that small, disciplined European armies could defeat much larger Indian forces
Proved importance of naval power in Deccan conflicts
War was inconclusive—set stage for future conflicts
Second Carnatic War (1749-1754)
Background
European Peace: General war ended in Europe but rivalry continued in India
Dupleix’s Strategy: Evolved policy of intervening in Indian princely disputes to gain territorial favors
Succession Crises:
Hyderabad: Between Nasir Jung (son) and Muzaffar Jung (grandson) after Asaf Jah’s death
Carnatic: Between Chanda Sahib and Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah
Alliance Formation
French Alliance: Dupleix supported Muzaffar Jung (Hyderabad) and Chanda Sahib (Carnatic)
British Alliance: Backed Nasir Jung (Hyderabad) and Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah (Carnatic)
Major Battles
Battle of Ambur (1749)
Date: August 3, 1749
Outcome: Decisive French-allied victory; 77-year-old Nawab Anwaruddin killed in battle
Consequences:
Chanda Sahib became Nawab of Carnatic
Muzaffar Jung became Nizam of Hyderabad (later killed 1751; replaced by Salabat Jung)
Muhammad Ali fled to Trichinopoly
Siege of Trichinopoly (1751-1752)
March 1751: Chanda Sahib with French support besieged Muhammad Ali in Trichinopoly fort
British Support: Reinforcements sent but initially defeated at Valikondapuram
Critical Situation: British forces facing potential surrender
Siege of Arcot (1751) – Turning Point
Robert Clive’s Strategy: Proposed diversionary attack on Arcot, Chanda Sahib’s capital
Forces: Only 200 British soldiers, 300 sepoys, 3 small cannons, 8 officers
August 26-31, 1751: Forced march under rainy conditions; occupied Arcot without resistance as garrison fled
Counter-Siege: Chanda Sahib’s son Raza Saheb sent 4,000 soldiers + 100 French troops
50-Day Defense: Clive successfully defended despite being vastly outnumbered
November 14, 1751: Massive assault repelled with 400 enemy casualties
Title Awarded: Muhammad Ali honored Clive as “Sabit Jung” (proven in battle)
Impact: Destroyed Chanda Sahib’s credibility and changed war’s momentum
War’s Conclusion
June 1752: Besiegers at Trichinopoly forced to surrender at Srirangam; Chanda Sahib captured and executed
Dupleix Recalled (1754): French authorities irritated by heavy financial losses; recalled Dupleix
Charles Godeheu: Replaced Dupleix as French Governor-General in August 1754
Treaty of Pondicherry (December 26, 1754)
Both companies agreed not to interfere in native princes’ quarrels
Each retained territories actually occupied
Political activities to cease; strictly commercial operations going forward
Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah recognized as Nawab of Carnatic
Significance
Demonstrated that Indian rulers had become dependent on European military backing
British emerged stronger with Muhammad Ali as Nawab
First example of subsidiary alliance system in India
Third Carnatic War (1757-1763)
Background
Cause: Extension of Seven Years’ War in Europe (1756-1763)
Global Conflict: Fought across Europe, North America, Africa, Asia, and Caribbean
British Advantage: Conquest of Bengal (1757) provided inexhaustible wealth and resources
Financial Disparities
British Strength:
Control of wealthy Bengal region
Continuous revenue collection and resource flow to Madras
Excellent harbor at Calcutta, navigable rivers
French Weakness:
Minor settlements (Pondicherry, Mahe, Chandernagore) with insufficient resources
Mauritius base unequipped and distant
Severe financial problems
Major Engagements
Capture of Chandernagore (March 1757)
British under Robert Clive seized French settlement in Bengal
Significant blow to French influence
Battle of Plassey (June 1757)
Clive’s victory against Nawab of Bengal and French allies
Strengthened British resources, morale, and financial capacity
Siege of Madras (1758-1759)
Count de Lally launched siege on British stronghold Madras
French failed to capture city due to lack of supplies and naval support
Battle of Wandiwash (January 22, 1760) – Decisive Battle
Location: Vandavasi (Wandiwash), Tamil Nadu
Forces:
French: 300 European cavalry, 2,250 European infantry, 1,300 sepoys, 3,000 Marathas, 16 artillery pieces
British: 80 European horses, 250 native horses, 1,900 European infantry, 2,100 sepoys, 26 artillery pieces
Commander: British Lieutenant-General Sir Eyre Coote vs. French Count de Lally
Outcome: Decisive British victory
Reasons for French Defeat: Lack of naval support, insufficient funds, poor strategic coordination
Impact: Destroyed French power in southern India permanently
Fall of French Possessions
Post-Wandiwash: British captured Chetpattu, Tirunomalai, Tindivanam, Perumukkal
Pondicherry Siege: Lasted 8 months; fell on January 22, 1761
All French Possessions Lost: Pondicherry, Mahe, Gingee, Karaikal
Treaty of Paris (February 10, 1763)
Terms Regarding India:
Pondicherry and Chandernagore returned to France
French barred from fortifying settlements or stationing troops
Permitted only trading activities
Outcome: France reduced to minor traders; imperial ambitions ended
British Supremacy: Established British dominance and “First British Empire”
Significance
Eliminated French political and military influence in India
British emerged as paramount European power
Paved way for British East India Company’s transformation from trading enterprise to territorial power
Laid foundations for British Raj (until 1947)
Reasons for British Victory and French Defeat
Military Factors
Naval Superiority: British dominated sea routes; could transport troops and blockade French ports
French Naval Weakness: Mauritius base unequipped and too distant; lack of effective naval support
Economic Factors
British Financial Strength:
Never neglected commerce; trade funded military campaigns
Bengal conquest (1757) provided inexhaustible wealth
Company trade paid for itself and provided loans to British Treasury
French Financial Weakness:
Subordinated commercial interests to territorial ambition
Perpetually short of funds; government couldn’t provide adequate support
Dupleix spent personal fortune but it was insufficient
Organizational Factors
British Efficiency:
Private enterprise with less governmental control; instant decision-making
Enlightened government progressing toward constitutional governance
Single-minded focus on colonial expansion
French Inefficiency:
State concern closely controlled by government; delayed decision-making
Personal despotism under Louis XV; incompetent ministers
Continental ambitions diverted resources from colonial expansion
Leadership Quality
British Excellence: Robert Clive, Warren Hastings, Stringer Lawrence, Sir Eyre Coote demonstrated strategic brilliance
French Incompetence: Personal failures of generals like Law, D’Ache, and Lally
Strategic Errors: Lally recalled Bussy from Hyderabad, diminishing French power
Policy and Strategic Vision
British Focus: Colonial objectives prioritized; consistent long-term vision
French Mistakes:
Dupleix neglected trade for political intrigue
Poor communication with Paris about plans
Sudden recall of Dupleix (1754) proved disastrous
Godeheu’s treaty abandoned Dupleix’s achievements
Industrial and Commercial Factors
British Advantage: Industrial Revolution created entrepreneurial enthusiasm; merchants eager to collect raw materials and market finished goods
French Disadvantage: Lacked similar commercial enthusiasm; operations unprofitable and indolent
Overall Impact and Significance
Immediate Consequences
French reduced to minor commercial operations; imperial ambitions permanently ended
British East India Company transformed from trading enterprise to territorial power
Subsidiary alliance system perfected by Lord Wellesley to control Indian princely states
Long-term Historical Impact
Laid foundations for British Raj that lasted until 1947
Exposed political fragmentation and military weakness of Indian rulers
Demonstrated how foreign powers exploited succession disputes and internal conflicts
Showed importance of naval power, financial strength, and organizational efficiency in determining colonial outcomes
