For what it's worth, the use of Portuguese in Goa is hardly because the language has any real relevance still. It's like with Pondicherry. The official publication of the Union Territory's government is "La Gazette de L'État de Poudouchéry" and the rest of the title page is also in French. (But the actual publications are all in Tamil or English.)
The retained use of French there is symbolic and historical. And the locals have chosen to keep up the tradition. I'm not Indian so it's not my place to say whether such legacies of a colonial history should be discarded. But it strikes me as more quaint than anything else. Such sentimental historical quirks are surely different from when a policy of forced linguistic change is actively in place, as happened under empire (either in India or in Mongolia).
As for English, well, colonization certainly moved things along there, to put it mildly. I certainly understand why some Indians are upset at its heavy use in government and business. Business conducted in a global market set up in large part by the same former colonial power. Learn their tongue if you want any chance of getting ahead. Not a wonderful feeling.
Still, I suspect that even if Britain had never colonized India, assuming they still became a major power and the USA later rose to prominence, it'd probably still be the most widely studied foreign language in India, with encroaching use even in government and business, as it is nearly everywhere.
For what it's worth, one of my French teachers was an Indian francophone and explained that in their region (whose name I cannot remember) French is the dominant language and she grew up speaking French at home.
It was certainly true for an older generation. The European settlers spoke French, and some in and around the French-controlled regions adopted French as a daily language, particularly those dealing with to the colonial government. This was true until the return of the territory in the 1950s. A few families have probably carried on speaking their home language. But in absolute terms, it's quite rare. There were probably fewer than ~100,000 native French speakers in India at the peak, and I believe the majority chose to move to France when the territories were returned to India.
The French didn't venture too far inland. They built outposts for trade, without any desire to rule beyond the walls of these outposts. Perhaps that's why the colonial legacy they left there is seen more as an inoffensive quirk.
The retained use of French there is symbolic and historical. And the locals have chosen to keep up the tradition. I'm not Indian so it's not my place to say whether such legacies of a colonial history should be discarded. But it strikes me as more quaint than anything else. Such sentimental historical quirks are surely different from when a policy of forced linguistic change is actively in place, as happened under empire (either in India or in Mongolia).
As for English, well, colonization certainly moved things along there, to put it mildly. I certainly understand why some Indians are upset at its heavy use in government and business. Business conducted in a global market set up in large part by the same former colonial power. Learn their tongue if you want any chance of getting ahead. Not a wonderful feeling.
Still, I suspect that even if Britain had never colonized India, assuming they still became a major power and the USA later rose to prominence, it'd probably still be the most widely studied foreign language in India, with encroaching use even in government and business, as it is nearly everywhere.