The Myth of Benevolent French Colonial Rule in India

India’s overlooked colonizer wasn’t as gentle as remembered.

On August 15, 2025, India celebrated its 79th year of independence from the British, an event that unites the entire country and its diaspora worldwide. For this occasion, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a speech to the country in which he advocated for the country to be “self-reliant,” insisting that “Freedom becomes meaningless if someone becomes too dependent on others.” Modi’s remarks were given in the context of growing tensions between Washington and New Delhi over tariffs.

However, there is an overlooked aspect of colonial rule in India that should be acknowledged. French rule in India is either forgotten as a footnote or portrayed as “benign,” with the “mixing” of diverse cultures. In reality, the narrative of a benign French rule is a wholly simplistic one. French rule was characterized by opportunism to obtain maximum benefits for France at the expense of Indians.

History of French Colonial Rule

France’s interest in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) began in the 17th century. In 1664, the French East India Company (Compagnie des Indes Orientales) was founded. Throughout the 17th century, the state of relations between France and its main rival, the United Kingdom, had a significant impact on France’s policy in the IOR.

From around 1667 to 1746, the British and French had “peaceful coexistence” in South Asia, which was then replaced by immense rivalries with the Carnatic Wars. The various Indian princes and dynasties took advantage of this rivalry, siding with either the French or the British, or even switching sides if it gave them the most advantage.

After the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the French lost to the British, and their influence was limited to five trading posts, or comptoirs, such as Pondicherry. In 1954, the French withdrew their forces and transferred political authority to the newly created Republic of India. In 1956, India and France signed a treaty to formalize the handover, and the French parliament ratified it by 1962.

The “Benign” Policies

In Indian public discourse today, there is a dominant narrative arguing that the French “helped” the Indians fight the British militarily. On the one hand, this narrative contains an element of truth, such as how France sided with various Indian leaders during the Battle of Plassey against the British.

In addition, there were instances of how France gave refuge to various freedom fighters from the British. For example, the Indian freedom fighter Veer Savarkar was able to escape the British for a brief period by going to Marseille, France. In fact, many freedom fighters, such as Subramania Bharti, escaped to Pondicherry to avoid arrest by the British government.

Furthermore, some Indians did benefit from France’s policy of direct colonial rule, unlike Indians under the British policy of indirect rule, which did not extend similar benefits. In fact, one of the provisions of the 1956 treaty allowed the inhabitants of French India to choose to retain their French citizenship or to become Indian citizens within six months after the transfer of political authority back to India occurred.

During the 1930s, French newspapers such as Le Figaro and Le Temps drew comparisons between Mahatma Gandhi’s movement and the French Revolution, citing connections to their shared republican ideology. Gandhi himself adopted the French values of liberté, égalité, and fraternité, extolling the situation in Pondicherry as a model of what “representation” should look like.

The Strings Attached

However, these relatively “benign” policies were not driven by altruism but by opportunism. Crucially, the French choice to aid Indian independence activists was not necessarily due to an affinity with their ideology, but as a way to weaken Britain. France’s actions in India are very similar to how the French also aided the Americans in gaining independence for the same reason: to weaken the British.

Additionally, like the United Kingdom, France also had policies that limited the rights of Indians. For example, in contrast to the dominant narrative that France gave universal citizenship to Indians since 1848, not all Indians were given equal benefits. The first electoral class was composed of European/local elites, and the second class was composed of the working class. Thus, it was the Indians who comprised the first electoral class that received the full benefits.

Most importantly, the French did not simply “give up” their possessions to the newly independent India. Rather, it was a culmination of the efforts of Indian freedom fighters, such as V. Subbiah, who fought tirelessly to gain independence. Importantly, French atrocities during the 20th century in places such as Algeria and Vietnam illustrate that they acted no differently than the British to preserve their colonial empire.

Crucially, by the 20th century, France’s relations with the UK largely stabilized with the 1904 Entente Cordiale, which specified each country’s spheres of influence. With these developments, the French did not have much incentive to cause problems for the British over India. They handed over freedom fighters like Savarkar to London after the Entente Cordiale to ensure that the broader relationship was not damaged. Even though the French were previously willing to “aid” Indian freedom fighters, this incident demonstrates that Paris was willing to sacrifice Indian freedom fighters for its own interests.

Considering these factors, had the French succeeded in fully colonizing India, it would have been equally brutal, with the only difference being that Indians would have been speaking French, not English.

The Post-Independence Relationship Between India and France

Despite France’s own fair share of colonial atrocities, for the most part, India’s relationship with the French is largely positive. More broadly, colonial history is largely overlooked, aside from a few minor incidents such as when the Indian government renamed “Pondicherry” to “Puducherry” in 2006.

Aside from the geographical limit of French rule compared to the British, one key reason for that is that the Indians perceive the French as treating them as “equal partners.” This Indian sentiment is largely shaped by the perception that France’s insistence on strategic autonomy, as expressed through its Gaullist worldview, closely resembles India’s Nehruvian worldview of nonalignment.

Today, France is one of India’s most important strategic partners and is a critical supplier of weapons and nuclear technology. In 2016, France became the first foreign country to send in a military contingent during India’s Republic Day ceremony, the day India officially became a republic after gaining independence. Ever since Emmanuel Macron became president in 2017, the India-France relationship has only deepened. In fact, during Modi’s visit to Marseille in February 2025, he referenced Savarkar and thanked French activists who helped him.

By contrast, the modern-day relationship between the British and Indians is still marred with colonial hangovers, with films such as “RRR” reaching immense popularity. Even today, politicians like Shashi Tharoor still criticize the British colonial rule. In September 2025, after a Mumbai-based influencer reported that his bike was stolen while in the UK, Tharoor posted on X, “They’re learning from the British Museum!” Tharoor’s comment was in reference to how the British Museum contains many artifacts looted from India during colonial rule.

The differences in Indian politicians’ views toward French colonialism vs. British colonialism are shaped by the government’s broader strategic imperatives. Realistically speaking, the Indian government will not jeopardize its strategic partnership with France over colonialism.

However, the Indian government’s policies should not be an excuse to impede Indian scholars and the Indian people from critically evaluating every colonial power in Indian history, whether it is the British, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Austrians, the Swedes, the Danes, or even the French.

---

Editorial contributions by Rachael Rhine Milliard

The views and information contained in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Asia Cable.