Pondicherry in the French Revolution Era 1785–1793. Part 1: Reasons and Beginnings 1785–1791

Pondicherry in the French Revolution Era 1785–1793: Part 1: Reasons and Beginnings 1785–1791 Michal Wanner The French Revolution is one of the most popular topics in the world’s historiography, so are issues concerning responses that the Revolution generated in colonies. However, research into this field suffers relative non-uniformity. While questions such as abolishment or re-establishment of slavery in Caribbean colonies and the history of suppressing slave revolt on Haiti have been given considerable attention,1 the development in French colonies in the Indian Ocean has been analysed less frequently so far. The development in Pondicherry (today’s Puducherry), the centre of the French settlements in India— the author’s study subject, has been grounded on two earlier studies by Marguerite V.Labernadie from the 1930s,2 and arelevant chapters from the history of French activities in India from Siba Pada Sen’s pen dating back to the 1950s.3 Anyhow they are valuable works afew facts decrease their importance: The work by Labernadie reduces events of the Revolution to only be aconfusing and simple battle for the power among individuals, it neglects the role of Indians and foreigners they played during those events; it views them as mere evidence of apower fight. 1 Letʼs remember just afew titles from the past two decades C.WANQUET, La France et la première abolition de l’esclavage, 1794–1802: Le cas des colonies orientales, Ile de France (Maurice) et la Réunion, Karthala 1998; P.DELISLE, Catholicisme, esclavage et acculturation dans la Caraïbe francophone et en Guyane au XIXe siècle, Matoury 2006; O.PÉTRÉ–GRENOUILLEAU (Ed.), Abolir l’esclavage: Un réformisme à l’épreuve (France, Portugal, Suisse, XVIIIe–XIXe siècles), Rennes 2008; J.EHRARD, Lumières et esclavage: L’esclavage colonial et l’opinion publique en France au XVIIIe siècle, Bruxelles 2008; F.LAPEYRE, Quand les voyageuses découvraient l’esclavage, Paris 2009; F.BLANCPAIN, Étienne de Polverel: Libérateur des esclaves de Saint-Domingue, Bécherel 2010; C.OUDIN–BASTIDE, L’effroi et la terreur: Esclavage, poison et sorcellerie aux Antilles, Paris 2013; C.CHIVALLON, L’esclavage, du souvenir à la mémoire: Contribution à une anthropologie de la Caraïbe, Paris 2013; O.GRENOUILLEAU, Qu’est-ce que l’esclavage?: Une histoire globale, Paris 2014; S.LARCHER, L’autre citoyen: L’idéal républicain et les Antilles après l’esclavage, Paris 2014. 2 M. V.LABERNADIE, La révolution et les établissements français dans lʼInde, 1790–1793, Paris— Pondichéry 1930; M.V.LABERNADIE, Le vieux Pondichéry 1673–1875, Paris— Pondichéry 1936. 3 S. P.SEN, The French in India (1765–1816), Calcutta 1958. 52 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 Labernadie without adoubt feels no sympathy for revolutionary elements that she presents as rebels whose agitation all “honest people” 4 avoid, and which does not contain asort of general idea background. Siba Pada Sen enriched the study subject by comprehensive approach; he had taken into an account the development in Chandernagore (todayʼ Chandannagar) and other colonies. In general, he had sympathy towards democratizing tendencies brought about by the Revolution; nevertheless he despised radicals, and was not reluctant to critically comment on most French revolutionaries’ inflexible attitudes towards races. He was one of those who had devoted rather insufficient attention to activities of Indian population. 5 Achange in this respect was only brought about by numerous studies examining asocial development and interracial relationships, namely the 1960s legal and historical studies by Pierre Lampué6 and Roger Glachant7. The thing that had enormous importance for research into impacts of the French Revolution in India were studies from the late 1980s and the early 1990s linked with activities of the International Historical Association for the Indian Ocean. The thing that represented the turning point in the research were colloquiums held in Delphi in February-March 1989, which would produce avaluable study from Claude Wanquet’s pen;8 the outcomes of the international conference held in Saint-Denis de la Reunion in 1986 tracing relationships between France and Indian emperors from the 17th century onwards,9 but primarily acolloquium held in October 1990 in Saint-Pierre de la Réunion whose results would be published in acollection edited by Claude Wanquet and Benôit Jullien in Paris in 1996.10 The studies can be grouped into afew fields by their objectives. Some of the authors depict revolutionary events in the French colonies. This stream primarily focuses on issues of interracial and social relationships in colonies on the Coromandel Coast,11 and is dominated by beneficial studies by M.Gobalakichenane devoted to aTamil manuscript known as the Journal de Viranaicker depicting events in Pondicherry in 1778–1792,12 as well his study about Tamils’ activities in the French colonies in the Revolution era.13 4 LABERNADIE, La Révolution, p.205. 5 SEN, The French, pp.438–439, 535. 6 P. LAMPUÉ, Le régime constitutionnel des colonies françaises, in: Annales du droit et des sciences sociales, Vol.4, 1934, pp.233–244. 7 R. GLACHANT, Histoire de l’Inde des français, Paris 1965. 8 C. WANQUET, Révolution française et identité reunionaise, in: Revue française d’histoire d’outre mer, 1er et 2er trim, 1989, pp.35–74. 9 Les relations historiques et culturelles entre la France et lʼInde: XVIIe-XXe siècles = Historical and cultural relations between France and India: XVIIth–XXth centuries, Saint-Denis de la Reunion 1987. 10 C. WANQUET— B.JULLIAN (Eds.), Révolution Francaise et Océan Indién: Prémices, héritages et déviances, Paris 1996. 11 TAFFIN, Citoyens, pp.235–248. 12 M. GOBALAKICHENANE, La révolution de Pondichéry d’aprés Viranaicker II; TAFFIN, Citoyens, pp.221–234. 13 M. GOBALAKICHENANE, La Revolution Française des Tamouls de Pondichery (1790–1793), Chennai 2014. MIcHAL WANNER 53 This study aims to synthetically contain all outcomes and to consider interrelation of the development in Pondicherry and other colonies, mostly on the Mascarene Islands and Chandernagore. According to this study’s author, the development in one colony impacted the development in other colonies in many situations. FRECH POLICY IN INDIA AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR Pondicherry, the centre of French colonies in India, was placed in adifficult situation after The Revolutionary War.14 Although the English handed the town back to the French on 1st January 1785, yet it had to face economic problems and political uncertainty. Generally, there was awidespread feeling of desperation and frustration among inhabitants.15 Hopes for re-gaining Pondicherry political stature faded owing to policy adopted by the French government after 1783. The War had completely wrecked its finances, so the government teetered on the verge of bankruptcy. For that reason it had little tolerance for colonial expansion and only concentrated on finances consolidation. As State Secretary of the Navy, Eugѐne Gabriel de La Croix, Marquis de Castries wrote in 1787, the King’s intention was “to try to preserve peace among princes until we are able to help them, and up to the time we are able to join the forces of Holland. We must wait before the right disposition arises, so we could ask this power for afew bases”.16 The French had depended upon the use of the Netherlands’ navy and navy bases against the English in case of war, which they would partially do during the Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic Wars. However, the help they received from the Netherlanders was nowhere near as huge as the English navy, and only provided alittle compensation for the necessity to protect Dutch dependencies, Marquis de Castries, even issued orders to evacuate Pondicherry in case of war with England, and to transport all troops and munitions to Trincomalee on Sri Lanka, whose harbour the French party in Holland had promised to give to France.17 The issue had gone so far as to adeputation sent to France by the key ally of France, Mysore Tipu Sultan, would receive nothing more there but acourteous reception, since the financial situation of France did not allow the fight to be re-started. Therefore the English were able to attack lonely Mysore and to force the city to surrender half of the territory and most of its treasures. The French prestige adequately lowered due to that.18 14 The vast implications of the American War of Independence over the situation in India have been summed up in the study M.WANNER, Zápas evropských mocností vIndickém oceánu vdobě války onezávislost USA 1778–1783, in: Historica Olomucensia, Vol.48, 2015, pp.69–97. 15 GOBALAKICHENANE, La Rèvolution, pp.221–234. 16 H. H.DODWELL, The Exclusion of French, 1784–1815, in: H.H.DODWELL (Ed.), The Cambridge History of India: British India 1497–1757, Vol.5, Cambridge 1929, p.325. 17 J. MURAY (Ed.), Correspondence of Charles, First Marquis Cornwallis, Harvard 1859, Vol.1, p.337; M.WILKS, Historical Sketches of the South of India, in an Attempt to Trace the History of Mysoor: From the Origin of the Hindoo Government of that State, to the Extinction of the Mohammedan Dynasty in 1799, Vol.2, London 1817, p.124. 18 DODWELL, pp.325–326. 54 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 The government would decline requests for building up an army in India. All European troops and munitions had been withdrawn from Indian colonies, so what only remained on the site were not too many sipahis. All French dependencies in the East became subordinate to the Governor-General of Île de France in 1785,19 since in Paris, the Mascarene Islands had been believed to be “the key to Indian seas”, Gibraltar of the East”, and “the boulevard of French dependencies in Asia” ;20 Port Louis on Mauritius had been considered to be astore of soldiers and abase of corsairs due to arather exaggerated idea about the possibilities to launch alarge naval expedition to India from those islands. One advantage was amoment of surprise. The Mascarene Islands were far enough to avoid the direct attention of the English but close enough to allow an expedition to be mounted to India from there. “Lying at the one-month-journey distance from the shores of India, Île de France could have served as armoury provided it had been equipped with all required material, and if soldiers and sailors had been sent there at peace not at the moment of war declaration.”21 Nevertheless, experience would show that the Islands had been suffering disadvantages, since French admirals were forced to leave Indian waters no later but at an initial failure or when worries about possible defeat appeared. Due to that administrative reform Pondicherry had lost its grand status as the centre of the French dependencies in India and became asubordinate settlement. The French government’s post-1783 policy was to maintain settlements in India as trading stations. It was in aglaring contradiction with policy followed in the preceding half of the century. The transfer of the main centre from Pondicherry to Port Louis assumed enormous symbolic importance since it indicated that France had definitely resigned from its ambitions in India. It was not possible to cultivate close diplomatic relations with Indian princes or to plan military intervention from the distant Île de France. The capital city transfer inevitably resulted in another transfer, now the remaining military forces to Port Louis. Pondicherry became an indenfensible city.22 Those matters made that policy extremely unpopular among Pondicherry dwellers likewise they did among residents of some other settlements that had blamed the local government for betrayal of the national interests. The thing that was seen as an act of treachery was leaving the French settlements in India at the mercy of the English. Those feelings would play an important role during the Revolution outbreak five years later.23 What is more, the relation between the management on the Mascarene Islands and the Pondicherry colony was complicated by that administrative reform despite the existence of numerous ethnic and family ties and key economic relationships among residents of both centres resulting from migration. Most of the Governors 19 SEN, The French, pp.426–427. 20 S. E.LE DUC, Ile de France: Documents pour son histoire civile et militaire, Port Louis 1925, p.9. 21 H. PRENTOUT, LʼIle de France, sous Decaen 1803–1810, Paris 1901, Prefase, p. ix. 22 SEN, The French, p.430. 23 C. WANQUET, Pondichéry et/ou Port Louis, ou les incertitudes de la stratégie française dans lʼocéan Indien à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, in: Les relations historiques et culturelles entre la France et lʼÍnde, XVIIIe–XXe siècle, Actes de la Conférence de lʼAssociation historique internationale de lʼocéan Indien, Saint-Denis, Tom. 1, 1986, pp.343–362. MIcHAL WANNER 55 had been gradually on duty in the majority of colonies in the Indian Ocean. “L’Inde en Inde” trade had been gradually making both of the colonies rich. Vitally important foodstuff, ebony, spices (mostly clove), slaves, fabrics for their blue clothes or furniture from Pondicherry workshops had been flowing from India to Île de France and Île de Bourbon. Flowing in opposite direction was sugar, oil, rice and grain crops.24 The years 1795–1796 showed that the Mascarene Islands could only exist in isolation with no contact with India and colonies in the Indian Ocean at the cost of drastic reduction of rationing to “four to six ounce of bad bread for each of the dwellers per aday”.25 The mutual dependence existed also in the sphere of defence. As Abbé Raynal rightly stated: “The link between Île de France and Pondicherry is important to that degree that both dependencies are mutually dependent since no defence of settlements in India would exist if it were not Île de France, and Île de France would be exposed to the English invasion from both Asia and Europe if it were not Pondicherry.”26 In addition to losing the French Indian colony another considerable loss occurred in the economic sphere. Trade during the War had ceased, and Pondicherry dwellers hoped that the economic situation would improve after the War. On that account they became disenchanted with the establishment of anew company holding monopoly on eastern trade. After sixteen years when all French traders had been allowed to take part in exchange of goods between France and countries east of the Cape of Good Hope, the monopoly was re-gained by the Company for Indies and China (Compagnie des Indes et la Chine). The call for anew company having monopoly on trade with East Indies apparently occurred as the result of the weakness that the French had towards the British in India.27 The Company was established practically in secrecy by the Royal State Council Decree of 3 June 1785. The Company consisted of adiverse group of traders and financiers from Paris, Lorient, Grenoble, Switzerland and Scotland. It was established after negotiations with the British, who had backed the establishment of that new French company as atool for supporting trade of their East India Corporation. The Company had 20 million livres in capital available, and enjoyed the privilege certified by the Council’s Resolution of 21 September 1786 that granted the monopoly trade to the east of the Cape of Good Hope including “export of pepper, sandalwood, cardamom, fabrics and all products from those countries, and import of goods from Europe”. The monopoly did not apply to the Mascarene Islands that means, the harbours on Île de France (Mauritius) and Île de Bourbon (Reunion). They remained accessible to all French ships.28 24 C. WANQUET, Les Iles Mascareignes, lʼInde et les Indiens pendant la révolution française, in: Revue française dʼhistoire dʼoutre-mer, Vol.78, No. 290, 1991, pp.29–57. 25 C. WANQUET, Histoire dʼune Révolution. La Réunion 1789–1803, Marseille 1980, Vol.2, p.126. 26 G.-T.-F.RAYNAL, APhilosophical and Political History of the Settlements and Trade of the Europeans in the East and West Indies, Vol.2, London 1798, p.423. 27 T. CLAEYS— G.LE BOUËDEC, Commerce Libre et Compagnie de Calonne, in: R.ESTIENE (Ed.), Les Compagnies des Indes, Paris 2013, p.79. 28 LABERNADIE, La revolution, p.15; J.TARRADE, Le maréchal de Castries et la politique française dans lʼOcéan Indien à la fin de lʼancien régime, in: C.WANQUET— B.JULLIAN (Eds.), Révolution Francaise et Océan Indién: Prémices, héritages et déviances, Paris 1996, pp.39–48; 56 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 The Company had its central office in the Hôtel de Massiac in Place des Victoires in Paris; its home harbour became Lorient in Bretagne. The Company took over buildings, shops and workshops of the erstwhile Perpetual Company of Indies (Compagnie Perpétuelle des Indes) in Lorient and Marseille,29 and opened factories in Canton, Pondicherry, Bengal, on the Coromandel Coast, the Malabar Coast, in Mocca and on Île de France.30 The Company had been rapidly expanding. Profits enabled 18 per cent dividends to be paid in 1788 and 16 per cent dividends to be paid in 1789. The Company sent goods to India amounting to 36.17 million livres during its short existence; however, it mostly exported silver. Goods imported into Europe mostly consisted of textile manufactured in Chandernagore in Bengal, Pondicherry, Yanam, and Karaikal on the Coromandel Coast. One agreement entered into in 1787 granted the French the right to sell 200,000 maunds of salt to English factories every year, and to buy 18,000 maunds31 of saltpeter and 300 cases of opium from them every year. However, due to the establishment of the Company the inland trade was the only one that had been left open for private traders from Pondicherry, which would not be yielding too much owing to the political situation in the country, and would be limited to sending salt to Bengal according to the 1787 Agreement.32 GOVERNORS CHANGING The years between 1785 and 1790 saw rapid changing of governors in Pondicherry: six in mere five years. None of them served there as governor long enough to become involved in the colony reconstruction and development. What is more, changing aroused the feeling of political doubts, since each of the governors worried about the loss of their popularity so tried to pass unpopular solutions resulting from reforms required by Paris on their successors. Subsequent to Marquis Bussy’s unexpected P.HAUDRÉRE, Quelques aspects du commerce entre la France et lʼAsie à la fin du XVIIIe siécle 1765–1793, in: C.WANQUET— B.JULLIAN (Eds.), Révolution Francaise et Océan Indién: Prémices, héritages et déviances, Paris 1996, p.35. 29 Perpetual Company of Indies, which preceded this company, lost the monopoly by agovernment decree of 8 August 1769. The shareholders then handed over all the property of the company to the state and by an edict from January 1770 they received compensation for these assets. M.MORINEAU, Les Grandes Compagnies des Indes orientales, Paris 1999, p.85. 30 CLAEYS— LE BOUËDEC, Commerce Libre, pp.79–80. 31 Maund— anglicized expression for aunit of weight used in India, Afghanistan, Persia and Arabia. The size varies greatly by territory. Maund was equivalent to 25 pounds (11 pounds) and 160 pounds (72.5 pounds). In Bengal, the rate was standardized in 1833 according to local habits at 82.28 pounds (36 kg). ANew English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Oxford 1908, p.250; J.PRINSEP, Useful Tables, Forming an Appendix to the Journal of the Asiatic Society: Part the First, Coins, Weights, and Measures of British India, 2nd Ed., Calcutta 1840, pp.84–90. 32 O. PRAKASH, The New Cambridge History of India II/5: European Commercial Enterprise in Pre-Colonial India, Cambridge 1998, p.309. MIcHAL WANNER 57 death in 1785 powers were taken by his deputy, Coutenceau. Nevertheless, he would run the office no more but few months, and would only manage to seize the occupied French dependencies in India from the English hands and gain them back. Prior to Bussy’s death, in reaction to his request for going back to France, the Ministry had already decided to appoint Souillac, Governor of Île de France, to be Bussy’s successor. 33 Having arrived from Île de France in May 1785, Souillac would stay in Pondicherry no longer but four and ahalf months. He went back in October to assume the office as the Governor-General of all French colonies in the East in accord with the administrative reorganization announced by the French government in May 1785. Souillac only brought to Pondicherry the French government’s instructions relating to economical measures, but would have no time to implement them. He appointed his successor in Pondicherry— Charpentier de Cossigny, who had commanded aFrench contingent in Mysore Tipu Sultan’s army in 1783. Cossigny had been holding the office for nearly two years but proceeded highly slowly to avoid unpopular measures when accomplishing state aims. In September 1787, he took over the office as the Governor of Île de Bourbon.34 Cossigny’s post as the Governor of Pondicherry was taken by Count Thomas Conway who had commanded French forces on the Cape of Good Hope during the preceding war. Holding the office for two years he became extremely unpopular due to his effort to push through administrative and economic reforms proposed by the Ministry. His Irish roots were the cause of town dwellers’ irritation and mistrust towards him as they kept remembering another Irishman, Lally-Tollendalan’s debacle on the seven-year-war Indian battlefield, and who they had seen as atraitor.35 His low popularity is documented by arespectable citizen and rich trader from Pondicherry, Burry de St. Fulgence’s note: “This man is insofar as anxious, violent and awful, inasmuch as our General has never been the right one to run the colony. […] The hope is that another heart failure will free us from that man.” 36 Conway left for Île de France in October 1789 to be appointed Governor-General; he would appoint de Fresne as Governor. He entrusted him with atask to execute the government’s instructions, first of all to send the remaining European units to Île de France and leave Pondicherry unarmed.37 Leading to identical consequences, analogous replacements of single colonies’ heads could be seen elsewhere too. To give an example, Chandernagore and five subordinate colonies in Patna, Cossimbazar (also Kasimbazar or Kasim Bazar), Dhaka, Jougdie and Balasore had been restored in 1785. The man who became the head of the colony was Dangererux conferred aprecedent title “Commandant”. He was replaced by Motten in October 1787, who would hold the position until his replacement in 1788 with foregoing Montigny.38 33 SEN, The French, pp.427–428. 34 LABERNADIE, La Révolution, pp.12–13. 35 M. WANNER, Sedmiletá válka vOrientu, Praha 2001, pp.149–181. 36 LABERNADIE, La Révolution, p.18. 37 SEN, The French, p.429. 38 Ibidem, pp.452–453. 58 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION AND ECONOMIC MEASURES Prior to the French Revolution outbreak, the French colonies in Asia had been ahive of reform activities for five years, whose impact would assume considerable significance for the character of the Revolution in each of the colonies. The first administrative measure had been intended to establish anew High Council in Pondicherry and was declared by the Royal Edict of August 1784 dissolving so the earlier Council established in February 1776. The new Council consisted of agovernor, an intendant, asenior officer and afew traders or respectable citizens nominated by the Governor. The council had both civil and criminal powers, and worked as an Appeal Court for cases that had appeared before the court in other settlements. The thing that caused agrave problem about the new Council’s work was that the members had not been paid asalary, so it was extraordinarily difficult to get experienced citizens who would have accepted that office of honour. The economic reality proved essential, so it was inevitable to establish other paid functions for those who had been nominated to the Council.39 Conway set up the Administrative Committee shortly after he had taken the office in 1787, whose task was to help the Governor administrate settlements in India. He also re-established the Consultative Chamber consisting of Indian worthies in December 1787. Governed by the Highest Council’s decree this body had been already formed in January 1778.40 The fundamental reorganization concerned the foregoing unification of the French colonies situated east of the Cape of Good Hope under one government. The Governor-General’s residence was Port Louis on Île de France. He had two subordinate governors; one of them resided on Île de Bourbon (Réunion), another in Pondicherry. The Governor of Pondicherry was in charge of administration of other settlements in India, however, their attitude to authorities in Pondicherry and on Île de France was not clear. The French colonies in India were subordinate to Pondicherry in matters of general administration, but the Governor of Chandernagore enjoyed the right to turn directly to the government in Port Louis. Pondicherry did not have any control over Chandernagore, and the Commandant of Chandernagore was directly dependent on the French Governor-General on Île de France. Such powers allocation led to chaos, and would be one of the causes of disorders in Chandernagore in 1790.41 Each of the Governors had been making efforts to impose cutbacks and to cheapen the administration, for that reason they made redundancies or salary cuts. The number of clerks was reduced to eight; the quantity of translators fell to two. As adetailed account on monthly expenses written by Intendant Moracine in September 1786 shows, the French government earmarked for Pondicherry the amount of 228,000 livres in total. Alarger portion of that amount went to civil expenses. Pondicherry had lost its political importance; no troops were based there. Merely sipahis serving rather police than defence functions were supposed to stay in the town. However, 39 Ibidem, p.429. 40 Ibidem, pp.429–430. 41 LABERNADIE, La Révolution, pp.191–199. MIcHAL WANNER 59 the strength of the troops there was limited to only 1,200 men and seven European officers.42 Nevertheless, the withdrawal of European troops from Île de France proved difficult, so about 300 European soldiers would not leave Pondicherry until 1790 when the ship Bienvenue would bring Conway’s instructions about how to completely empty Pondicherry. The command was ignored owing to citizen’s political opposition and de Fresne’s political forethought.43 Castries indicated the French government’s intentions as to the question of Indian settlements in one important political report written to Souillac on 14 February 1787. The King should have remained responsibility for the administration of Pondicherry, Mahé, Karaikal, Yanam and Chandernagore, other settlements and colonies should have become subordinate to the new Company for Indies and China. Since no reason to restore fortification in Pondicherry existed, the town should have only been protected by amoat, possibly by clay mounds. That Castries’s directive ceased reconstruction of Pondicherry designed by an engineer La Lustière in September 1785. According to de Castries’s second instruction of June 1787 the town had been planned to be environed by aslope earth mound “just to prevent desertion and maintain order”.44 Far stricter instructions aiming to introduce savings in the administration were sent from Île de France in April 1789. The expenses of all French settlements in India had been fixed to 700,000 livres in total; the troops of sipahis should have been reduced to one 500-men battalion. Conway received those instructions on the way to Île de France in October 1789, and would entrust his successor de Fresne with carrying those instructions out. Conway’s instructions to his successor show that the issue should have been transferred to Governors of each of the settlements. They themselves were supposed to deal with the trade development, serve justice and raise tax collection.45 It is worth noting that interests and intentions of the state did not correspond with those of the Companies for Indies and China, as indicates the letter from Intendant Moracin addressed to the Company’s management in Paris, dated on 10 September 1789. The reason for composing the letter was the Company’s intention to take the administration of Indian settlements over from the government. Moracin had perfectly analysed the economic situation in the French settlements, and pointed out it was not hopeless. He rejected reduction in military units in India, and protested against leaving the settlements with no protection against attacks from exterior or internal civil disorders. He argued in favour of preserving about 500 European soldiers including 100 artillerymen and 1,200 sipahis, and indicated how to achieve that aim within the budget of the French dependencies in India. The annual tax yield from each of the settlements produced 1,200,000 livres in total. As he saw that it was the amount which would have covered both military and civil expenses provided the profit from selling opium, salt and saltpeter had not been spent on charity. Since the local government 42 SEN, The French, pp.430–431. 43 Ibidem, p.432. 44 Ibidem. 45 Ibidem. 66 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 from unsatisfactory and unpopular reforms in numerous spheres. The news about the Revolution in France led to creating representative bodies that would not solve the same problems like the French National Assembly. The following course of the Revolution in Indian colonies was dynamized by primary milestones of the development in France whose impact in each of the colonies was different. The development in Pondicherry was relatively calm. 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. The key revolutionary requests formulated in that colony in February 1790 would be accepted by the National Assembly due to atrouble free character for the centre in Paris. KEYWORDS History of India; The French Revolution in Colonies; History of East India Companies; British-French Struggle for India; French Colonial Imperium in Asia Michal Wanner | Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic— Department of Archives Administration and Records Management, Milady Horákové 133, 166 21, Praha 6, Czech Republic, [email protected]