conceived and executed in 1699. This concided with the Sultan of Golkonda’s handing over Pondicherry to the French. The great French ruler Louis XIV decided on what he called “India’s conversion” and was willing to defray the expenses involoved . The French Missionaries like their predecessors, the Portuguese and the Dutch, had the monarchs on their side. The members of their Mission like the other Missionaries had to face great difficulties. “Besides the natural enmity of the Hindus and Muslims, whom religion separated, their own brethren from Europe didn’t wish them well, for politics separated them. The Dutch in India at that time did not like these men from France, since French and Dutch interests were opposed in India. We must add to these the marauding tribes that infested the roads of the day that led from Pondicherry to various places on the coast.”10 The missionaries frequently lost all their money and belongings. Roads in India were full of ‘highway men’ who robbed and plundered and the missionaries were frequently their targets. Wild beasts roamed over the roads, where they were a regular danger. Dr. M. Arokiaswami believes that before Caldwell wrote his monumental work about the Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian languages, a Frenchman called Millett had evolved one.11 He says, “A few Frenchmen even wrote in Tamil. Meditations on God and the Realities, were prepared for everyday of he week by the French Jesuit, De Rossi of the Madura Mission……….. a few French Jesuits of Trichinopoly tried their hand again in Tamale and produced excellent reading on monthly developments”.12 Let us now turn our attention to the situation among the Indian princes and chiefs during the advent of the foreign powers. Muslim rule had been esṯablished in Delhi during the early parṯ of ṯhe 13th cenṯury. Iṯ slowly endeavoured to peneṯraṯe beyond the Vindya mounṯains. Allaud-din-Khilji was able to push successfully his frontiers down Souṯh. To maintain a rigid conṯrol subsidiary Sṯaṯes were formed. These divisions were to play an imporṯanṯ role in Souṯh Indian Hisṯory. Afṯer Devagiri and
10. Ibid, Vol. 39, Part III, Ser. No. 117; December 1961; P. 402. 11. & 12. Ibid, Vol. XL; Part I, Ser. No. 18; April 1962, Pp. 194, 195. |