From what I understand, the French approach to colonialism was to try to make subject peoples French. If France in India sees the benefits of indirect rule and use of local elites and norms to advance the goals of the French state, then it might change how they approach rule elsewhere.
Although It is often summarized this way, It was in fact quite different, depending in times and places.
What was true to a certain extent and in certain places (mainly in the late 19th and early 20th century) with the local elites was not true at all with the common people or in other times (before the late 19th century) or in other places.
It is necessary to make the difference between what one says about what one is doing and what one actually does.
So India being very specific, the french gaining control of It in the wake of Dupleix will not necessarily change how the french run their other colonies like the sugar islands which were very profitable slave factories. It may however change the way the french run their settler colonies because controlling the indian cash cow will provide France far more money to develop and hold their settler colonies, to sustain a bigger Navy, military as well as commercial, in order to reinforce relations with its colonies.
Last edited: