Tutor Request Form: Fill & Download for Free

This is the story of a forgotten woman.…But the reason why she’s forgotten might be an understandable one.…But maybe she’s worth remembering anyway.I dunno.You be the judge.In her lifetime she was a bestselling author, whose second novel was taken seriously enough by a British prime minister that he wrote a 10,000-word negative review of it.She was, for several years, a towering figure in the culture of her time, late Victorian and Edwardian England. She was friends with Theodore Roosevelt and Henry James.She was a serious and ambitious writer, a public intellectual, whose works sold hundreds of thousands of copies.She also worked for good causes, like the education of the poor, and founded what was basically Britain’s first kindergarten.She lived long enough to visit the Western Front in World War 1, and report on it.But she doesn’t show up in popular books about goodnight stories for rebel girls, or celebrations of great women in history.Not simply because people haven’t heard of her; but because those who do know about her, are aware that, frankly, she kind of wasn’t a rebel girl.Still, I’m willing to bet that most of you have not heard of her, or that if you have, all you know is her rather strange pen-name.Dear friends.It’s my melancholy pleasure to introduce Mary Augusta Ward.Known to her contemporaries, and to posterity, as Mrs Humphry Ward (1851–1920.)Mary Ward, c. 1890.She was born Mary Arnold in Tasmania, then known as Van Diemen’s Land, where her father Tom was an Inspector of Schools at the time. His father had been Thomas Arnold, the legendary headmaster of Rugby public school, which meant that Tom’s brother, the poet and critic Matthew Arnold, was Mary’s uncle.When Mary was very small, Tom Arnold did something that would turn out to have a lasting influence on his eldest daughter.He converted to Catholicism.This made his position as a school inspector untenable, and in 1856, the family, which by then included Mary’s two surviving younger brothers Willie and Theodore, moved to England.Five-year-old Mary was left at the family home with her grandmother and aunt, while her mother, father and brothers went to Dublin, where he’d been made a tutor at the new Catholic university.In 1858, seven-year-old Mary was sent to boarding school.In 1861, ten-year-old Mary was sent to another boarding school.In 1865, she was sent to another boarding school, the rest of the family having moved in the meantime to Oxford. Her father had converted back to Anglicanism again. (He would later re-convert back to Catholicism.)In Oxford, she finally went to live with her family, after nine years of being away from them. She had, in the meantime, acquired five new siblings.The young Mary Arnold was apparently quite a firecracker. She was frequently disciplined at school for unruly behaviour, and her modern biographer John Sutherland notes that at the age of 14, she seems to have fallen seriously in love with one of her teachers, Miss May, a passion she later wrote about in her 1894 novel Marcella, where Miss May appears as ‘Miss Pemberton’:A tall slender woman with brown, grey-besprinkled hair falling in light curls after the fashion of our grandmothers on either cheek, and braided into a classic knot behind—the face of a saint, an enthusiast—eyes overflowing with feeling above a thin firm mouth—the mouth of the obstinate saint, yet sweet also: this delicate significant picture was stamped on Marcella's heart. What tremors of fear and joy could she not remember in connection with it? what night-vigils when a tired girl kept herself through long hours awake that she might see at last the door open and a figure with a night-lamp standing an instant in the doorway?Maybe it’s just the literary conventions she worked within, but her fiction retains a lot more enthusiasm for female beauty than for the male version. Mary Ward’s men are seldom very vividly described, but she lingers over the physical appearance of her female characters.Miss May wasn’t the only woman that Mary was attracted to. Years later, as a young married woman in her early thirties, she met and, according to her memoirs, ‘fell in love with’ the beautiful Laura Tennant, a young socialite, ‘one of the most ravishing creatures I have ever seen’. Laura Tennant married Alfred Lyttleton and died in childbirth aged 24.To the best of my knowledge, little to nothing has been made of the queer figurations that are in Mary Ward’s writing; nobody cares enough about her work to want to.But anyway, Victorian society soon taught her to suppress any tendencies to unruly behaviour or same-sex passion.She was unlucky in her education, and she knew it.She went to school when primary schools in England were almost entirely unregulated, the Elementary Education Bill of 1870 being some years off, and for the rest of her life she resented the fact that her shiftless younger brother Willie got a better education at Rugby than she’d received, simply because he was a boy.In Oxford, although she wasn’t a student, the adults around her recognised that she was intelligent. She got much encouragement from male educators such as the Rector of Lincoln College, Mark Pattison, who almost certainly fancied teenage Mary (he had a well-known thing for much younger women), and who obtained permission for her to browse undisturbed in the lower parts of the Bodleian Library. She later remembered those times of reading old (and new) books as among the happiest of her life.Mark Pattison, livin’ the dream, as you can see.Through Pattison, she met George Eliot, arguably the greatest English novelist of the era, and sat at the great woman’s feet, imbibing her wisdom.Slowly, Mary Arnold began to try her hand at writing, and to think of herself as someone who had something to say.In 1871 she met Humphry Ward, a Fellow at Brasenose College, and they formed what used to be called an ‘understanding’.I would show you a picture of Humphry, but I’ll explain later why I have not.In 1872, Humphry and Mary got married. She was only 20.Mary Ward in her wedding gown, aged 20: photograph by Lewis Carroll.Over the next ten years, the Wards attempted to establish themselves as a couple of some substance in Oxford society.Mary got herself established as a journalist and columnist, writing pieces for The Times, the Saturday Review, the Pall Mall Gazette and other periodicals.She had three children, Arnold, Julia and Dorothy.Dorothy went on to become her mother’s devoted assistant and disciple.Julia, who loved her mother but was no stooge, married George Macaulay Trevelyan, who would go on to write the 1944 classic English Social History, and Julia herself would write her mother’s first biography.Of Arnold…we will talk later.In 1881 Mary wrote a children’s book, Milly and Olly, which she published under the married name that she would use for the rest of her life.In 1884 she published her first novel for adults, Miss Bretherton. Neither book exactly set the world on fire.By the late 1880s, Mary and Humphry Ward were a couple with a young family who had great ambitions for themselves, but were getting basically nowhere, socially and professionally speaking.It didn’t help that Humphry, who the society of the time would have considered the natural achiever of the family, was a right glass of warm water, failing to distinguish himself in most of the things he attempted. He lacked…vim. He behaved as though opportunities ought to just come to him. They didn’t.However, in Victorian England this was not necessarily an obstacle to a chap’s advancement, as long as he was well-spoken and had been to the right college, which Humphry had.In 1882, Humphry got a permanent position as art critic of The Times, where over the next few decades he earned a place in art history as the critic whose finger was absolutely not on the pulse of the most exciting things in modern art. The story was told that he once told the painter James Whistler what he thought was good and bad about his work. In response, Whistler was crushing as he only could be:My dear fellow, you must never say this painting is good and that is bad. Good and bad are not terms to be used by you. Say ‘I like this and I don’t like that’ and you’ll be within your right. And now come and have some whisky. You’re sure to like that.It’s now time for me to explain why I haven’t decorated this answer with a picture of Humphry.If you do a google image search for ‘humphry ward’, there are no pictures of him.Only of his far more productive and talented wife.In 1885 Mary sold her planned but as yet unwritten second novel Robert Elsmere to the publisher Smith, Elder & Co.It took her three more years to actually write it, and it was only published after George Smith, her publisher, had asked that it be cut down from its original enormous length.In the course of writing it, she suffered a serious physical breakdown and developed the writer’s cramp that she’d suffer from for the rest of her life.But when Robert Elsmere was finally published, it sold over a million copies.What is Robert Elsmere about, and why did it sell so well?Robert Elsmere is, as you can see, a novel of heroic dimensions. The above is the original three-volume library edition. My paperback copy, a reprint of the one-volume sale edition, has 576 pages.In brief: in the wild fells of Westmoreland (present-day Cumbria) lives the fragile widow Mrs Leyburn and three daughters: beautiful, pious and dutiful Catherine; sarky, sexy, violin-playing Rose; and the reserved and sardonic Agnes (who, if this were a contemporary novel, would probably be the protagonist.) The late Mr Leyburn was hella pious, and drummed into his children the importance of duty above all else, but Catherine’s the only one who really internalised the lesson.Early on, we are introduced to the title character, Robert Elsmere, the local rector, a young, passionate, intellectual red-headed bloke who’s committed to good works. He falls hard for one of the Leyburn girls.Is it Rose, the most entertaining one? No! It’s Catherine, the boring one! Never mind, because although Catherine Leyburn is devoted to doing what her father wanted to do, even at the expense of her own happiness, she’s not a total cipher, a mere straw woman of duty and piety. Much against every inch of her religious upbringing, she finds herself falling in love with Elsmere, and the enormous first third of the novel ends with them getting married.In the second part of the novel, we join Robert and Catherine Elsmere in his parish in Surrey, where he’s visited by his old tutor Langham, a rather cynical freethinker. Langham, for his part, starts to get all quivery in the presence of Rose, who for her part finds him Byronic and fascinating with all his talk of, um, ‘thought’.But the real meat of the novel is in the conflict between Elsmere and the local squire, Mr Wendover.Wendover is a bitter and sarcastic old man with a fantastic library full of German philosophy. He’s allowed his agent Henslowe let the estate fall to ruin, with tenants living in hovels, because he lives for his hobby of study and reading and ain’t give a damn about charity. Elsmere manages to persuade Wendover to see for himself just how crappy his tenants’ lives are, whereupon Wendover overcomes his distaste for the good-working clergyman and becomes more friendly.However, the middle of the novel is taken up with Elsmere’s confrontation with Wendover, in which Wendover’s corrosive scepticism ends up destroying Elsmere’s faith. Robert Elsmere ceases to believe that Jesus did miracles, was the son of God, was resurrected, etc.And here’s the crucial thing:Mary Ward herself had ceased to believe those things too. Her hours of reading in the Bodleian Library had opened her eyes to the groundbreaking scholarship of the likes of Strauss and Feuerbach.The rest of the novel is the working-out of the consequences, and includes some decent social comedy, and some romance between Rose and Langham, and some fairly heart-rending conflict between Robert and Catherine, who still believes.In the context of late Victorian society, Robert Elsmere cut to the heart of how the public was feeling about religion. It laid out in the most detailed and authentic way just how and why many people were losing their faith.And because it laid these things out in terms that the average reader could immediately grasp, it was a hit.Mary Ward wrote about how she’d been on a train waiting to depart, and a young woman had rushed up to the carriage, having just got the first volume from the library, and was boasting to a friend about it. Mary didn’t reveal that she herself was the author, but sat in the compartment while the young woman devoured the book.Robert Elsmere made her reputation. She was 37 years old.William Ewart Gladstone, who was at the time in between serving a term as British prime minister, read it and couldn’t put it down. He was astounded by what he regarded as its heretical qualities, and decided to write a long review about how dangerous the book was.The result was that the book sold even more copies.After Robert Elsmere, Mrs Humphry Ward wrote another 22 novels. But she never quite reached that level of fame and success again.One of them, 1898’s Helbeck of Bannisdale, is regarded by many people as better than Robert Elsmere, and not just because it’s considerably shorter. (I’ve started it, and my first impression is that it probably is—it’s certainly tighter.)But for the most part, although she often succeeded in getting very lucrative deals for novels such as The Marriage of William Ashe and The Case of Richard Meynell and Diana Mallory, her sales slowly dropped off.And here we have to ask the question:Why did Mary Ward publish her books using her married name, rather than her own?From her very first book, Mary used ‘Mrs Humphry Ward’ as her authorial name.She had a lifelong tendency to form friendships with intellectual men and—this is crucial—seek their approval. Some of this is due to the looming presence in her life of her grandfather, Thomas Arnold, and uncle Matthew.When she wrote anything, she tended to offer it to the men in her life who she regarded as her intellectual superiors, to see if they thought it was okay. She didn’t do this with Robert Elsmere, but she did do it with later works.If they didn’t approve, which happened whenever they thought she was being too controversial, she would tone the book down.Robert Elsmere itself had been even longer in its original draft. Her modern biographer John Sutherland commented that it would have been better if she’d written it as a saga, because the need to cut it down to novel-length meant cutting out a lot of the intellectual disputation, which resulted in a book that was both very long and also curiously underwritten.Mary Ward fairly quickly became the breadwinner in her family, and she was so successful as a writer that she won a lot of bread.But as time went by, she was also consumed by the need to seem successful and respectable. One of her most-used phrases in later life was What will people think?In spite of her reputation in early middle life for religious unorthodoxy (a 1976 book about Robert Elsmere is entitled Victorian Heretic), as she got older, she started to go to church, which she hadn’t done in a long time.She bent over backwards to encourage her husband and son in their professional lives, while not doing the same for her daughters. Humphry dabbled in art collecting, and wasted tons of the money she earned on ‘Rembrandts’ that weren’t Rembrandts. Mary could barely bring herself to mildly tick him off about this.Her son Arnold seems to have been a complete tool. Quarrelsome, arrogant, addicted to gambling and not very talented, he had an undistinguished career in the military and then was a largely insignificant Tory MP. Mary steadily paid off his gambling debts with the profits from novels she pumped out too often; she should have written less and taken more care about her books, but the family always needed money to support the lifestyle it wanted.She did valuable charity work. She helped found Somerville College, one of the first two women’s colleges in Oxford. She went on to found the Passmore Edwards Settlement, an organisation for working with the London poor, and on her death it was renamed the Mary Ward Settlement. It’s now the Mary Ward Centre, an adult education college. The centre’s website does not mention who Mary Ward was.But in 1908, she did the thing that is probably the main reason why she’s not celebrated today.1908 was a year when the women’s suffrage movement was really getting going, and the resistance to it was really hotting up.In that year, Mary was approached by Lord Curzon and the Earl of Cromer and asked if she’d like to be the figurehead of the Women’s National Anti-Suffrage League.According to her daughter Janet, Mary ‘groaned but acquiesced’.She couldn’t say no to a request for help from powerful men, even if, as in this case, she was supporting something as transparently boneheaded as the anti-suffrage movement.For the next several years, she appeared at one meeting after another, making speeches about how voting was not the business of women, and having to listen to idiot men rant on about how weak and stupid women were.What was her argument? It certainly wasn’t that women were too stupid to vote—at least, it wasn’t quite that. She pointed out that in her twenties she’d helped found a women’s college, and had inaugurated a series of educational lectures for women.Instead, she argued that the growth of the British Empire meant that the country was facing a host of new problems:constitutional, legal, financial, military, international problems—problems of men, only to be solved by the labour and special knowledge of men, and where the men who bear the burden ought to be left unhampered by the political inexperience of women.It was a circular argument, really: Women shouldn’t be allowed to gain political experience because they’re too politically inexperienced.And as the reader has probably guessed, it impressed fewer and fewer people as time went by. In 1918, the Representation of the People Act granted the vote to women over 30 who met certain property qualifications, and ten years later all women over 21 were granted the vote.Mary Ward wasted most of her last years in a futile effort to delay women getting the vote. She thought that men in general knew better, and that a woman’s place was to support the men in her life, in spite of the fact that she was easily the most intellectually gifted and energetic member of her own immediate family.Mary Ward in 1914.The books kept coming out; some good, some not so good.Theodore Roosevelt got her to write a series of reports about Britain’s efforts in the war, and she duly got permission from the Government Propaganda Department to go to the front and write some stirring stuff about our boys. She duly delivered, along with some outraged sentences about the horribly unpatriotic Irish having their beastly Rising while a war was going on.The Coryston Family drew on the troubles of her own family with honesty and power. She wrote novels that dealt with the experience of war: Sutherland recommends The War and Elizabeth, which captures the uncertain mood of 1917, and Harvest, which is about violent crime. I haven’t got to them yet.She published her memoirs, A Writer’s Recollections, which contained fond memories of departed friends like Henry James.In 1920, she died from heart failure, after a long period of chronic bronchitis and heart disease.In 1917, Mary Ward’s nephew, Aldous Huxley, who would go on to be, well, Aldous Huxley, met Virginia Woolf at Heal’s in London. They strolled up and down talking about his aunt. Woolf recalled the conversation in her diary:The mystery of her character deepens; her charm and wit and character all marked as a woman, full of knowledge and humour—and then her novels. These are partly explained by Arnold, who brought them near bankruptcy four years ago and she rescued the whole lot by driving her pen day and night.Huxley loathed Arnold Ward, as did Arnold’s sister Janet. In fact, most people who knew Arnold Ward ended up disliking him.Mary Ward was an intelligent and talented woman, whose career shows how such a person’s energies can be wasted if they find themselves in a society which doesn’t value them. She herself shared a lot of the values of that society, which is why she allowed her tyrannical sense of duty to lead her into the anti-suffrage movement. She groaned, and acquiesced.And then, as Virginia Woolf said, her novels.You can buy most of Mrs Ward’s fiction in Kindle form for a few quid, or read it on Gutenberg, if you so wish; at long last her work is valued at the same price as classic writers who are far more famous.There was very little public mourning at her death. The Times gave her a two-column obituary. Virginia Woolf noted in her diary ‘it appears she was a woman of straw after all—shovelled into the grave and already forgotten.’There have been no dramatic revivals of interest in her work. Only recently, in the era of digital publishing and print-on-demand, has there been new scholarly editions of any of her novels. My copy of Robert Elsmere is an Oxford World’s Classic from the late 1980s, long out of print. Henry James wrote an admiring review of the book (earning her undying gratitude), in which he described very well what it’s like to read:It suggests the image of a large, slow-moving, slightly old-fashioned ship, buoyant enough and well out of water, but with a close-packed cargo in every inch of stowage-room. One feels that the author has set afloat in it a complete treasure of intellectual and moral experience, the memory of all her contacts and phases, all her speculations and studies.The literary critic Q.D. Leavis was notorious for being brutal about any hint of fakeness, ‘sophistication’ or inauthenticity in a book, and indeed for her general waspishness (which she shared with her husband F.R.), but even she found a good word to say about Helbeck of Bannisdale:The novel … incarnates a Protestant-Catholic deadlock and ends tragically, for the situation is inevitably tragic. In it Mrs Ward maintains the impartiality and wide understanding through natural sympathies that she had achieved in life, as a girl in a difficult but not unhappy home. The situation, the conflict and the insoluble deadlock have stature from being representative, not modish, and so transcend the merely personal feelings of the author …Mary Ward was once a bestselling author, a giant of her time.Other answers to this question have suggested such diverse authors as G.K. Chesterton, Somerset Maugham, and even Charles Darwin—still well-known, if not as widely read as they used to be.Mary Ward was a serious woman; even ‘heavily’ serious, like the caricature of a Victorian writer. But she had a sense of humour, even if she seldom put it in her novels. (Robert Elsmere always lightens up whenever Rose comes in.)I think she would look at the idea that these authors are not widely read anymore, and be bitterly amused.She could tell those boys what it’s like to have your entire literary career completely vanish.Thanks for reading.Sources:Henry James, ‘Mrs Humphry Ward’, in Essays, American & English Writers, 1984, Library of AmericaQ.D. Leavis, ‘Women writers of the nineteenth century’, in Collected Essays Vol 3: The Novel of Religious Controversy, 1989, CambridgeJohn Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward: Eminent Victorian, Pre-Eminent Edwardian, 1990, OUPJanet Penrose Trevelyan, The Life of Mrs Humphry Ward, 1923, accessed at The Life of Mrs. Humphry Ward by Janet Penrose TrevelyanMrs Humphry Ward, Robert Elsmere, 1987, OUPMrs Humphry Ward, Helbeck of Bannisdale, 1983, PenguinMrs Humphry Ward, The Works of Mrs Humphry Ward, 2 vols, Kindle editionMrs. Humphry [Mary Augusta] Ward, 1851-1920: An Introduction to her Life and Works - a fine short online biography with pictures.

THE SPARTAN MYTH -This subject of history is…well…quite fragile. So let us delve into the matter and shatter the myth of the Spartans and proclaim the truth.TRUTH -The Spartans, a group practically worshipped by popular culture and military insitutions for producing the ultimate warrior. Extreme super soldiers trained from childhood with unmatched strength, discipline, and courage battling against tyranny and oppresion, yet this narrative is a lie. A vast millennia long distortion of the truth built up by propoganda via sources and politicization. Today we will unmask the truth behind the Spartan Myth.THIS IS (NOT) SPARTA! -Let us first begin by confronting the elephant in the room, the story that everyone knows, the last stand of bold Leonidas and his 300 against an army of a million Persians. This is the heart of the Spartan legend. A scene immortalized in paintings, poems, song, book, comic and film, each retelling further embellishing an alternate history.However the very foundations of the myth are challenged when we learn that the battle was never intended as a suicide mission, that there were 20 times more allied Greeks than Spartans at the start of the fight, and almost four times as many allied Greeks there at the end, that the last stand was an anomaly in Spartan history, that fifty years later they would be fighting fellow Greeks while being paid by the Persians, that the Spartans were not bred for war, that their oppressive society was built on the back of slavery, that for much of their history, they were admired for their political rather than military achievements, that their image over the years has been cherry picked and twisted to fit countless narratives.This is the confused mess in which we find ourselves. It is only recently that scholars have been able to turn a critical eye on much of what we think we know about the Spartans. Armed with these findings we will now rewind the clock back, before the emergence of the myth, and rebuild our understanding of Sparta from the ground up.THE RISE OF SPARTA -Sparta had originally been settled around the 10th century BC in the Eurotas Valley of Laconia in the southeast Peloponnese. Its early development was rather typical and it bore the hallmarks of many other Greek cities. During the 8th and 7th centuries BC Sparta expanded regionally, conquering the neighboring people of Messenia and Laconia to rule one of the largest territories in Greece. These subject populations became a vast underclass of helots ruled over by a leisured Spartan elite. The resulting dynamics of this socail structure would mark a turning point in Spartan history and drive its long term evolution. Many are quick to trace back their percieved military dominance to this moment, however no contemporary sources from this period mentioned Sparta as having abnormally martail culture or unique military institutions. Instead, it appears that their rise to power was gradual and can be more readily attributed to a strength in numbers, than strength in arms. In fact ancient stories seem to claim it was Argos, which was famed for its warriors, while Sparta was known for its women.During the 7th century BC, many Greek city-states started to consolidate their internal order and formalize their laws. In Sparta, these were retro actively attributed to the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus. Primarily these included the establishment of a council of elders,(Gerousia of 28 men) which Plutarch credits with bringing stability to a government which had previously oscillated between the extremes of anarchy and dictatorship. Egalitarian focused land reforms were also implimented, alongside new institutions for communal eating and schooling. While these are often pointed out as being uniquely Spartan, they were in fact features present to varying degrees in other Greek citites.In the 6th century BC, Sparta switched its approach, they no longer took foreign territory outright, turning conquered people into helots. Instead, they expanded by forcing other states into a system of unequal alliances we call the Peloponnesian League. Its members had to swear to follow wherever the Spartans led. Yet the contemporary evidence still does not depict them as unstoppable killing machines, tellingly, at the legendary Battle of Champions in 545 BC, Sparta and Argos are supposed to have matched their best 300 hoplites in a fight. Argos would claim victory, and leave one Spartan left standing, it would appear that this was no one-sided affair.THERMOPYLAE -By the time of the 5th century BC, the Spartans had solidified their position as one of the primary leaders of Hellas. This presented them with a unique opportunity to achieve greatness with the outbreak of the Greco-Persian Wars. While the Spartans played a minor role in the first war, they would take supreme command of the Anti-Persian forces in a larger invasion ten years later, but as Greece was overrun, the coalition worried that the Spartans would elect to sacrifice the northern cities and instead defend their home base to the south. As a show of commitment, the Spartans decided to help make a stand at Thermopylae.Contrary to popular belief, this was not a heroic suicide mission by Leonidas and the brave 300, rather, it was the deployment of a small, mixed group of 7,000 hoplites to hold the pass, while the rest of the levies of Greece were raised for an anticipated showdown with the main Persian Army.However, Xerxes arrived sooner than the Greeks expected, sending the allied commanders into a panic. Herodotus tells us that many wished to retreat, but that it was the Phocians and Locrians, not the Spartans, who insisted on holding the line. Ultimately, Leonidas elected to stay, but sent requests for immediate reinforcements. There is no evidence he intended to fight to the death for “Glory’s Sake”. Over the next two days the Greek Army took turns holding the pass at Thermopylae, while the Navy defended the straits of Artemisium.The encounter at sea was beginning to favor the Persians, and the land force was similarly threatened when an encircling goat path was revealed to the invaders.It is at this point that the majority of the Greek force abandoned the position. A small contingent composed of the surviving 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, and 400 Thebans remained. We will never know exactly what compelled Leonidas to stay, regardless of the intent, however, the last stand at Thermopylae would become one of the most effective feats of propoganda in histroy.BECOMING LEGEND -Despite the Greeks failing all their objectives, the final decision to go down fighting allowed the Battle of Thermopylae to take on an enormous symbolic significance. This was a fact seized upon by the Spartans. Because it was their king who ultimately gave the order to stand, they could claim credit for the sacrifice, despite the Spartans representing only a fifth of those who stayed behind. Thanks to carefully organized commemorations of the battle at home and at Thermopylae, the Spartans were able to take complete control of the ensuing narrative. It is telling, that Herodotus who writes of the fight almost two generations later boasts that he had memorized the names of the 300 Spartans rather than any of the other participants. This bias in our primary source colorizes his retelling of the battle, by projecting backwards from a point in time when the Spartan myth had already begun to take root. It is an incredible testament to the enduring nature of this story that it takes precedent in history over the far more significant encounters at Salamis and Plataea which ultimately led to the expulsion of the Persians.Suddenly the Spartans were elevated as heroes while the other participants were eclipsed and forgotten. The ensuing propoganda inflated their military reputation, which they eagerly exploited, what better way to stave off internal and external threats than to shield oneself in an aura of invincibility. The development of the Spartan Myth was a result of their ensuing efforts to realize their legend. With this understanding, we can now finally turn our attention to see if they were ever able to live up to the hype.BRED FOR WAR -One of the most enduring concepts to come out of the Spartan Myth is the idea that the Spartans were raised from birth to become the worlds finest warriors. This is wrong. In order to qualify this objection, let us look at the early years of a Spartans life. One of the first claims of Spartan superiority is the practice of eugenics, whereby newborns were inspected and thrown off a cliff if deemed unfit. This story comes from Plutarch and is largely regarded as myth. That being said, infanticide is indeed believed to have occurred in a form of child abandonment, though this practice of exposure also took place across much of the Mediterranean, including amongst the Romans and other Greeks.Upon surviving birth, the first few years of childhood are accepted to have been typical of most Greeks, even by our ancient sources. At the age of seven however, youths would be enrolled in the compulsory Spartan training program known as the Agoge. Yet far from being a military academy for producing good soldiers, their upbringing was more focused on producing good citizens. Athleticism, obedience, and competition were certainly fostered but these were never directly tied to battlefield skills. There is no evidence in their schooling of any weapons proficiency training at all. Rather, they would be taught to excersise, dance, recite poetry under the direction of their elders, while tutors educated them on reading and writing. In its early form this education would be rather similar to that of other Greek cities though with a noted emphasis on austerity. Over time it did eventually become more severe in order to reflect how the Spartans wanted to be seen.Many of the harsher elements of the Agoge would only be introduced long after Thermopylae. It seems that as Sparta’s reputation waned, the rigors of schooling increased, as a way to sustain their identity. This differentiation generated prestige which drew the attention of many aristocratic families from other cities who sought to enroll their sons. By the time of the Roman conquests, Sparta was but a pale shadow of its former self. None the less, its horrid education became something of an antique theme park, that drew visitors wishing to experience a glorious past that had never been true.SUPER SOLDIERS -Having analyzed their youth, we will now follow the Spartans into adulthood and see what kind of soldiers they became. This transition began around the age of 20 when students graduated from the Agoge and joined the Spartan army. For the next 10 years their lives would be centered around one of several communal messes, entry into these groups required the consent of all its members and failure to gain approval by the age of 30 meant that the individual would be denied full citizenship.Based solely on the Spartan Myth, who might expect that these ten years were spent as professional soldiers, mastering the art of war. Once again however, our popular expectations are confounded. Spartans were not professionals in the modern sense, and they did not form a standing army, they were not paid and controlled by the state, they did not make their living off soldiery, and they were not always under arms. Much like other Greeks, Spartan hoplites were a milita force that served as a civic duty. The main difference was that while most other Greek troops returned to a life of labor, Spartans returned to a life of profiting off the labour of others. They were landed elites overseeing a vast underclass that worked almost every aspect of their economy. This rich man’s life was the envy of many Greeks. But if the Spartans had all this free time, surely it must have been spent training to be the best of the best. Well it is true that they did dedicate time to hard excersise and enforced moderation, this was not explicitly militaristic, neither Plutarch nor Xenophon make mention of marital arts, weapons training, mock combat, or group training excersises that are the bedrock of today’s boot camps. When not called upon by the state, they went about their duties as estate holders, they sang and danced, they drank together, they rode horses and raised chariot teams, they hunted, they played games, and slept around. At the Olympics the Spartans were not particularly notable winners, outside of the most upper-class event, the chariot race. In the end, this leaves us with an understanding that the Spartans were something of a cross between a milita and the landed aristocracy.The evidence suggests that qualitatively they had the potiental to produce top tier Greek warriors, but they were by no means unmatched in this capacity.CRAFTSMEN OF WAR -While individual Spartan soldiers may not have been particularly formidable. Spartans working together, were much more impressive. Among the Greeks, they were the only ones to develop a command structure that went down to the platoon level with their own officers.ATHENS -Strategos - ArmyTaxiarchos - (1,000 men)Lochagos - (100, 500 men)SPARTA -King -Polemarch - (600 men)Lochagos - (150 men)Pentekostyes - (80 men)Enomotarchos - (40 men)This chain of command offered more tactical options than just fighting a normal phalanx. Spartan forces could maneuver on the battlefield swiftly following orders and wheeling and changing face as a situation demanded. This was done while marching to the sound of flutes. Such discipline and control also allowed them to advance into battle while walking which proved psychologically intimidating to untrained enemies. On campaign, the Spartans enforced their command structure and drill formations upon allied forces raising the overall combat effiiciency of coalition armies. They were able to win several battles as a result of this ability, the Spartans extended their organization to other aspects of their military as well, this included assigning specific officers to take care of supplies and detaching specialist troops for the task of guarding the camp or scouting ahead of their marching column. Such was their reputed expertise, that when allies asked them for help, they were known to send a single advisor, rather than an army. Though as we shall see, this may have had other causes, however the main drawback of Sparta specialisation was that it was only applied to a single aspect of the army, the hoplite phalanx.They failed to develop competent light infantry or cavalry, which led to an inability to fuel well-rounded forces without the support of allies. In the long run, this stagnation would be their Achilles heel.PERFORMANCE IN BATTLE -Now that we have discussed the Spartans on the individual and unit level, we can assess how they performed overall on the battlefield. The most striking measure of their success is the fact that they were undefeated in pitched battles for over a century and a half. This is thoroughly impressive, however as always we will dig beneath the surface of such claims. It must be stated that during this time they did suffer losses in smaller battles, skirmishes, ambushes, sieges, and naval engagements, these were more numerous during this period, as pitched battles were actually relatively rare. When we compare Spartas overall performance against those of their peers, statistics seem to indicate they performed relatively worse, and sometimes better, to other leading city-states, such as Athens and Corinth.Pitched/Siege/Naval Battles -Battle of Tegyra- Theban victoryBattle of Pylos- Athenian victoryBattle of Mantinea- Theban victoryFirst Battle of Hysiae- Argive victoryBattle of the Fetters- Arcadian victoryBattle of Naupactus- Athenian victoryBattle of Rhium- Athenian victoryBattle of Cynossema- Athenian victoryBattle of Cnidus- Athenian victory- (Entire Spartan fleet destroyed)Battle of Abydos- Athenian victoryBattle of Haliartus - Theban victory (Spartan king killed)Battles of Naxos- Athenian victoryBattle of Megalopolis- Macedonian victory (Spartan king killed)Battle of Sellasia- Macedonain victoryBattle of Gythium- Roman/Greek alliance victoryBattle of Sphacteria- Athenian victory (Spartan army destroyed)Battle of Thermopylae- Persian victoryBattle of Abydos- Athenian victoryBattle of Cyzicus- Athenian victoryBattle of Arginusae- Athenian victoryBattle of Munichia- Athenian victoryBattle of Lechaeum- Athenian victory (first Greek record of lightly armoured army defeating phalanx)During the Peloponnesian wars, Sparta lost every single battle, except one, when Sparta finally besieged Athens they managed to tear down the walls and win the war. Sadly, the Athenian army was in a bad location to save the city, so did the Spartans prove their worth?Sparta only won 15 Battles - I have not finished writing their defeats.It should also be pointed out that Sparta never agian fought to the death as at Thermopylae. Despite the popular notion of the invincible and aggressive Spartans, the evidence seems to bear out that they were actually far more reluctant fighters than other powers, for instance, during the 5th century BC, it was the Athenians who initiated more battles than any other Greek State. Our sources reinforced this notion by pointing out that Spartans were notoriously cautious when it came to committing their forces. This can be attributed to two major factors.The threat of internal revoltRapidly declining population numbersThe danger of an uprising was always a looming threat for the Spartans, this was a result of their hierarchical social structure, whereby they had set themselves up as a ruling elite over an underclass that greatly outnumbered them. These helots were suppressed through fear and intimidation, if however the Spartans appeared weak, the tables might turn, for instance, an earthquake in 464 BC sparked a major revolt that deeply traumatized the Spartans. Throughout their history, Sparta had to negotiate internal oppression and exploitation, which made them careful not to shift too many men away from home. A shrinking Spartan population further exacerbated these problems, this was largely the result of Sparta’s strict control over who could become a full citizen. It seems that land fragmentation, resulting from equal inheritence laws, combined with the consolidation of plots by the wealthy severely limited the ability of individuals to maintain the cost of citizenship.At its height in the late 6th century BC, Sparta boasted 8,000 citizens, but within two centuries, that had dropped to 1,000. By comparison, we should note that Athens at its height had around 60,000 male citizens, in order to compensate for such differences, the Spartans relied increasingly on others to do the fighting for them. This would include diluting their own ranks with non Spartans, or taking command of allies and mercenaries by merely dispatching small officer groups.It was only when Spartan interests were directly threatened or the reputation of Sparta itself was at stake, that their army would march out in full force. At all other times, the Spartan Myth was their best defense.THE SPARTAN MYTH -As we have seen, Thermopylae was the spotlight that gave Sparta its moment of fame. This proved to be a golden opportunity and to their credit the Spartans were able to put on a great show. A well rehearsed tough-guy act was enough to convince their audience and win a small empire, in the end however, they were a strong man that couldn’t take a punch when it finally came.This is best evidenced by the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, when Thebes defeated the Spartans, killing 400 Spartans, a third of their entire citizen body, and shattering their image. The Spartans were unable to recover from this blow and fell into a terminal decline, none the less, once off the stage, stories of their performance grew with each retelling, only to be recorded by Greek and Roman authors, this was then passed on to scribes and scholars down the years ultimately culminating in the modern evolution of the Spartan Myth, with which we started this answer. I hope that by the end of this answer, we have been able to effectively use the latest historical findings of the past decade to set the record straight.Thanks for reading, Cheers!

The story of Sikkim is unlike any other state in India. It is a story filled with ups and downs, spies and princes, an American Princess under the shadow of a Socialist state in the coldest years of the Cold War, a tangled web of political intrigue under the shadows of Kanchenjunga.Sounds a bit James Bondesque, doesn’t it?A traditional mask dance being performed by a Lama during the Phanglabsol festivalFor our story to start we have to take a trip down the memory lane, all the way back to August 1947, when a young leader in Delhi was full of dreams for his nation.“Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny; and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour…”Wait. Not that one. This one.Introducing Maharajkumar Sri Panch Palden Thondup Namgyal, the 23-year-old Crown Prince of Sikkim.As India became Independent on that fateful night of August, almost half of India was still not a part of it yet. These were the Princely States, ruled not by the British directly but via a local Maharajah or a Nawab.These states and their rulers were very diverse with respect to their language, culture and religion. Some were ardent Indian nationalists, while some wanted nothing to do with India. Some were rich and some were poor. I won’t go too much into this topic but will merely compare two extremes among 500+ princely states, i.e. Vejanoness and Hyderabad.The Nizam of Hyderabad ruled over a Kingdom the size of Laos consisting of a population of over 16 million people. The yearly revenue of the state in 1901 was 417 million rupees. He had his own Army, Civil Service, Currency, Postal Service, Anthem, Railways and Airline. The last Nizam’s son was married to Dürrüşehvar Sultan, daughter of the last Caliph of the Ottoman Empire, Abdul Mejid II.The Thakore of Vejanoness, on the other hand, ruled over an area of 0.76 sq. km and a population of 193. The yearly revenue of the state in 1901 was 750 rupees.The only thing similar between them was that both of them had to submit in front of the Indian State.However, the young prince had achieved something incredible during his visit to Delhi! A promise from Nehru that Sikkim along with the other Himalayan states were “special” unlike the other Princely states, and that their future would be negotiated separately.These Himalayan kingdoms were:The Kingdom of Nepal under the Shah dynasty,The Kingdom of Bhutan under the Wangchuk dynasty andThe Kingdom of Sikkim under the Namgyal dynastyOf these three kingdoms, Sikkim was in the weakest position in all possible parameters. But their biggest problem was demographic.You see, the Namgyals of Sikkim were minoritarian monarchs, not unlike the present-day Al Khalifas of Bahrain. Bhutia Buddhist monarchs ruling a largely Nepali Hindu populace. This was a result of the massive Nepali migration into the region during the British rule, eventually turning Sikkim Hindu majority(~75% of the population).H. H. Risley notes in the 1894 edition of ‘The Gazetteer of Sikkim’:“Hinduism will assuredly cast out Buddhism and the praying wheel of the Lama will give place to the sacrificial implements of Brahman.”The Buddhist rulers of Sikkim who were known by the title of Chogyal and their feudal underlings the Kazis were very autocratic and oppressive towards their Nepalese Hindu subjects.So while the Durbar was delighted at having a chance of being a separate kingdom, they weren’t ready to reform the terribly antiquated feudal system of Sikkim. On December 1947, protests broke out against the exorbitant rents extracted from the tenant farmers, led by 22-year-old young Nepali youth named CD Rai. The group decided to deliver a petition to the Political Officer(Representative of Delhi to Gangtok), Arthur Hopkinson, in the hope that he might support their call for change.He didn’t.The Residency, home of the Political Officer in GangtokHowever, those protests changed the political culture of Sikkim, bringing the disenfranchised ordinary Sikkimese Nepalis into the political arena in a way that had previously been unthinkable. A political party was formed, the Sikkim State Congress (SSC) which made it’s three demands:‘Landlordism’ must be abolishedAn Interim government must be formedSikkim should agree to accede to India.The Crown Prince was willing to fulfil the first demand, but the remaining two demands were almost impossible for him to fulfil. Having a truly democratic government would alienate his Buddhist subjects who served as his power base. Eventually, though the Prince agreed on creating an Interim government consisting of 5 members :3 elected members(One each from the Bhutia, Lepcha and Nepali communities)2 nominated members chosen directly by the PalaceA new political party, the Sikkim National Party(SNP) sponsored by the Palace emerged as well. It was Pro-Monarchy and Pro-Independence and was expected to win the two seats reserved for Bhutias and Lepchas, which along with the two Palace nominated members would have reduced the Nepali majority to political irrelevance.Protests broke out and a mob of 5000 Nepalis broke through the Palace gates and demanded reform. The Prince fled and took refuge in the Residency. Hopkinson by now had been replaced by Harishwar Dayal as the new Political Officer to Gangtok, and he dissolved the interim government and ordered the two companies of Indian Army present in the kingdom to restore order.These actions were not happening in a vacuum. As it was increasingly being clear that the Chinese civil war reaching its end, the ambiguous nature of the Tibet was increasingly coming into question. Tibet and Sikkim had extremely close cultural relations. Apart from both Tibet and Sikkim having the same state religion, the ruling Namgyal family had its roots in Tibet, the Prince’s wife was from a Tibetan noble family, his sisters were married to Tibetan nobles. By the end of 1950, CCP had taken over Tibet.Indo-Sikkimese treaty of 1950 was signed which officially turned Sikkim into an Indian protectorate. Article III(1) of the treaty states:The Government of India will be responsible for the defence and territorial integrity of Sikkim. It shall have the right to take such measures as it considers necessary for the defence of Sikkim and security of India, whether preparatory or otherwise, and whether within or outside Sikkim. In particular, the Government of India shall have the right to station troops anywhere within Sikkim.So not only was Sikkim relieved of handling its external affairs and defence, but its internal powers were curtailed as well. An Indian bureaucrat named JS Lall was appointed as the Dewan(Prime Minister). Neighbouring Bhutan got away with much better terms, not only was it guaranteed complete internal freedom, New Delhi was to only ‘guide’ Thimphu’s foreign policy and Thimpu was to ‘consult’ with New Delhi regarding foreign and defence affairs.The only positive thing for the Namgyals during this time was the creation of the “Parity formula” which was a delicate balancing act between the Bhutia-Lepchas and the Nepalis. The Bhutia-Lepcha community (by now only 25 per cent of the population) was to have at least 50 per cent of the seats in elections reserved for them. The other 50 per cent of seats was reserved for the Nepali community (roughly 75 per cent of the electorate). For the Nepalis, this was an improvement but no way near the fully representative government they had desired.On the summer of 1959, the Prince was sitting in the Windamere Hotel in the iconic town of Darjeeling. Much had changed since he last visited here. His septuagenarian father had retired from all public affairs, and he was de facto ruling the kingdom. His wife had passed away, leaving him alone with three children. It was to visit his children in a local boarding school he had come here. That is where he met her.Hope.The 19-year-old American teen majoring in Asian Studies. The future queen of Sikkim.Washington Post called her the “Grace Kelly of the East”. The marriage was a hot topic for the US press in those days and was covered by the Time and the National Geographic as well. However, the reactions from New Delhi were grim, as these were the coldest years of the Cold War and an American on the throne on Gangtok made New Delhi uneasy. However, they chose to keep their objections private for now, as deeper concerns in the far north had their attention.Rare video footage of their marriage.Shortly after Namgyal's marriage, his father died, and Thondup was crowned as the 12th Chogyal on an astrologically favourable date in 1965Things, however, were not so rosy in India. The 60s would turn out to be one of the darkest decades of India.In 1962, the Sino-Indian war broke out which resulted in the defeat of India and the occupation of Aksai Chin which continues to this day.In 1964, India would lose its first Prime Minister.Nehru’s death came as a big shock to the Chogyal. He was a supporter of Sikkim and all the Himalayan Kingdoms. He had a special corner in his heart for Sikkim and had chosen it to be his place where he would like to retire.The Chogyal personally admired Nehru a lot and had warmly welcomed him when the Indian Prime Minister had visited his Kingdom in 1958.Thondup and Hope attended the funeral, which drew more than two million mourners. But his mind was set on Sikkim.“I don’t know” he said, “what’s for Sikkim now.”After the mysterious death of Lal Bahadur Shashtri during the Tashkent talks, Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister of India.And with that Sikkim became the playground of the three tenacious ladies. Each playing hardball to get their own objectives fulfilled.Let me introduce you to the last member of the trio, Kazini Elisa Maria KhangsarpaBorn in Scotland, she was a lifelong traveller. In the 1920s, she emigrated to Myanmar with her husband, an Anglo-Burmese gentleman where she claimed to be a close acquaintance of George Orwell. Few marriages later, she ended up as the Royal Tutor to a Nepali Prince, and from there being the wife one of the most important nobles of Sikkim, Kazi Lhendup Dorji Khangsarpa. She also claimed to be a relative of Field Marshal Mannerheim, founder of Modern Finland. As it turns out now, her entire identity might have been an elaborate fabrication.[1]The Khangsarpa clan was an old Sikkimese Noble family. Since the inception of the Sikkimese kingdom, the royal house of Namgyals and the Khangsarpas never saw eye to eye. Although both of them were Buddhist by faith, the former were of Tibetan origin and the latter were of indigenous Lepcha origin.Since the 1890s British had encouraged massive Nepali Hindu immigration into the Buddhist kingdom much to the chagrin of the Namgyals as they feared the dilution of the Buddhist character of their state. The Khangsarpas had a different view of this and saw the Nepalis as cheap labour who could be utilised. Dorji was convinced that his connections with the Nepali majority would provide rich political dividends for him if the system was more democratized. Thus he took a very dim view of the Namgyal pretences of being Independent. Such was his popularity that his party the Sikkim National Congress(SNC) eclipsed the SSC in terms of popular support.In 1967, The Sino-Sikkimese border was on fire again. The Chinese troops had started digging trenches on the Sikkimese side and after repeated refusals to the Indians who asked them to go back, clashes ensued. Hundreds of casualties later, the Chinese withdrew restoring the status quo.It was not as if the ambiguous nature of Sikkim was already causing a lot of headache to New Delhi, an article was published in the Bulletin of Tibetology, that was brought into the desk of Indira Gandhi herself.Bulletin of Tibetology was the obscure academic journal of the Institute of Tibetology in Gangtok, which was opened to promote the scholarly study of Tibet and Buddhist related subjects. After the Chinese takeover of Tibet, this institute was opened and the Dalai Lama himself had laid the foundation stone.The article had an anodyne title, “The Sikkimese theory of landholding and the Darjeeling Grant” but the content was extremely provocative, to say the least. It's author, the Queen asked for the return of The District of Darjeeling (which had been granted to British India by the Chogyal way back in 1835) back to Sikkim. This was a direct challenge to the territorial integrity of India.The headlines such as ‘CIA Agent on Borrowed Plumage’ and ‘American Trojan Mare in Gangtok’ were splashed across India Dailies[2]In 1967, the Naxalbari uprising erupted in Darjeeling and there was a fear among the Delhi political circles that if the restive Nepali majority in Sikkim wasn’t given its due rights, Maoism may cross over the border.In 1967 elections were held in Sikkim, with farcical divisions made to undermine the Nepali majority. Out of the 24 seats:Six were appointed by the ChogyalSeven were for the Lepcha-Bhutia communitySeven were for the Nepali communityOne was for the Limbu/Tsong CommunityOne was for the Buddhist MonasteriesOne was for the Scheduled CastesOne was a general seatThe results were: SNC: 8; SSC: 2 and SNP: 5.Due to the incredibly fragmented structure, there was no way the Nepali parties could form a majority in the Parliament, the best they could hope for was an appointment into the Executive council which directly advised the Chogyal.This was a golden opportunity for the Chogyal to appoint the Kazi into the Executive council and build the much-needed consensus in the fractured kingdom.The Chogyal refused.He instead appointed a rival leader inside the SNC, in an attempt to divide the party. In an ensuing interview, the Chogyal referred to the Kazi as the “Al Capone of Sikkim”.Surrounded by Yes Men on all sides, Chogyal increasingly started to become detached from reality. He created a think-tank consisting of Pro-Monarchy intellectuals called the “Study Forum” which was to help in “nation-building” a project which was directly opposed by the Kazi.Sikkim Assembly HouseThe Study Forum under the Queen(Gyalmo) did do a lot of symbolical things to promote nation-building in Sikkim. Their main objective was to seek a revision of the Indo-Sikkimese treaty of 1950. They wanted Sikkim to then join the Colombo plan, print its own stamps and earn foreign exchange and eventually gain control of its border so as to control Nepali immigration from both Nepal and India.Before 1967, Sikkim had no educational structure of its own and depended on India for its curriculum and its teachers. In the next five years, literacy rates doubled and education was provided in as many as four languages: Denjoke(Sikkimese dialect of Tibetan), Lepcha, Nepali and English. Seats for the Tashi Namgyal Academy(the most prestigious school in Sikkim) were equally divided among the Bhutia-Lepchas and Nepalis.Gangtok started searching for symbols of nationhood and tried to find international attention whatever way possible. Sikkimese artisans were sent into the World Craft Council in 1968. Sikkimese representatives were also present in the Manila Conference of 1967. The Royal Couple used to visit London and New York twice every year tried their best to promote Sikkimese handicraft and textiles among the Chic crowd there. The Palace itself became a centre for lavish parties for foreigners making their way to the last Shangri La.A national anthem(Why is Denzong (Sikkim) Blooming So Fresh and Beautiful?)[3]was constituted and the Royal Bodyguard of Chogyal was raised to a company size led by a retired Indian Army officer. The Chogyal himself had a ceremonial position of a Major General in the Gurkha Regiment of the Indian Army. In 1972, the Chogyal created his own personal intelligence service led by Karma Topden.An official documentary about Sikkim by commissioned by the Chogyal as well which was directed by the auteur Satyajit Ray. The movie was banned in 1974 but since the 2000s the ban has been overturned.A Sikkimese Noblewoman flanked by two Sikkim guardsIn 1973 elections, the Pro-Monarchy Sikkim National Party won a majority of seats in the State Council. The opposition led by SNC and SSC responded by alleging that the election had been rigged. Protests and Counter Protests started in South Sikkim but the Chogyal ignored them.Chogyal instead concentrated on his 50th birthday celebrations which were to be held over a course of two days.Chogyal, Gyalmo and the Princess during the birthday celebration.The protests swelled and swelled and eventually, riots broke out. Sikkim Police which was under the direct control of the Palace opened fire, killing two protesters.Now the Kazi had the evidence he needed. He rushed to the Residency(Now the India house and under the P.O. K Bajpai) and asked for Indian assistance.Indians strongly advised the Chogyal to accept Indian help and he relented. The Protests stopped. Immediately.Indian Army which was already stationed throughout Sikkim and protected its borders took over the administration of the Kingdom. B.S. Das, an Indian bureaucrat was appointed as the Dewan.As Das reached Gangtok, he visited the Palace only to find a very belligerent Chogyal who blasted away at him:“Mr Das, Sikkim is not Goa that the Government of India has sent you to take over as Chief administrator. We have our separate identity and Indo-Sikkimese relations are governed by a Treaty. The so-called ‘popular leaders’ are nothing but a bunch of scoundrels propped up by outside forces. If my Police had not been disarmed and dishonoured by the Indian Army, I would have exposed each and every one of them. I shall never forgive the Indian Army for this”The situation was getting tenser. A mob of Bhutias loyal to their King had arrived in Gangtok. Nepalis from the ever porous Indo-Sikkimese borders were filling in as well. Chogyal’s and Gyalmo’s supporters abroad started making direct accusations against the Indira Gandhi administration, including the Chogyal’s sister Princess Coocoola, who was in Hong Kong then directly accused the Indians of fomenting trouble inside in Sikkim as did the Crown Prince Tenzing who was in London then.Finally, the Chogyal relented under pressure and signed the Tripartite agreement with popular leaders which reduced his power significantly. An inebriated Chogyal arrived into the signing ceremony and accused the leaders of being Desh Bechwas(Ones who sold the country).Things were morose inside the Palace as well. The Royal Couple’s marriage was incredibly strained and an article in the Newsweek which called Hope as the “Himalayan Marie Antoinette” had offended her deeply.On the 15th of August, Hope Cooke left Sikkim for New York for the last time along with her three children.The Chogyal was now a broken man. His traditional powers had been snatched away from him. His wife and children had left him. His chief source of information, Topden was exiled by India to Calcutta. However, he still was the Ceremonial Figurehead of the Kingdom of Sikkim, a protectorate of India.Finally, the Chogyal decided to visit Indira Gandhi in Delhi itself. Once a champion for the revision of the 1950 treaty now he asked for the reinstatement of his rights promised in that treaty. Although the Chogyal was warmly welcomed by the Iron Lady, his pleas were ignored. Disappointed, He flew to New York to persuade his Queen to return to Gangtok. She refused.Elections were held in 1974 for the last time in the Kingdom of Sikkim. Under the gerrymandered constituencies which heavily favoured the Kazi, SNC won 31 out of 32 seats. The lone opposition seat was the one reserved for the Monasteries. Kazi took the position of Chief Minister of Sikkim. He immediately asked for Sikkim’s integration with India’s political institutions.After negotiations seemed to fail the Chogyal felt that his time may have come to an end. He asked his trusted friend Captain Sonam Yongda to prepare the Sikkim Guards for the worst. He had planned to flee to Kathmandu wearing a Monk’s robes. The Captain requested him to place the entire Guards company into the Palace Compound and to engage the Indian troops if they entered. He also advised him to ask Pakistan or China for Diplomatic support. The Chogyal being a devout Buddhist, refused any such violent plan.Next day, Captain Yongda was arrested.Princess Coocoola, a staunch supporter of the Chogyal returned to Delhi from Hong Kong to find her being received by Indian troops for her protection. On reaching Sikkim house she found that the phone lines were cut and there was no way for her to reach Gangtok.Droves of Indian troops in full battle gear had entered Gangtok. A worried Chogyal called the new Political Officer, Gurbachan Singh. Singh assured that it was only a military exercise and that he was to meet Mrs Gandhi two days later in Delhi.The meeting was never to happen.On the 9th of April, 1974, few of the guards saw unusual activity by the Indian troops. The two sentry boxes at the Palace were fired at. Basanta Kumar Chettri, the Hindu Nepali bodyguard of the Buddhist King, was shot dead. The remaining Palace guards hands raised high, were packed into trucks and taken away. As they left they were singing: "Dela sil, li gi, gang changka chibso". It was the national anthem of a nation which no longer existed.Three centuries of Namgyal rule in Sikkim ended in thirty minutes.On the 14th of April, a referendum was held. 97% of voters chose to abolish the Kingdom and become a state. The institution of Chogyal was already abolished by the Assembly. The way the referendum was conducted was criticised by many, including Indian journalists.And thus ends our long Saga.Our Royal couple divorced a few years after that in 1980. Palden Thondup Namgyal, the deposed Chogyal died two years later due to Cancer in New York.Hope still lives in New York and since then has become a published author and an urban historian. She writes chiefly on the history of New York City. In 1983 she married Mike Wallace, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Historian but divorced him soon after.Crown Prince Tenzing died even before his father did due to a car accident. His younger brother Wangchuk Namgyal is the current titular Chogyal.Kazi Lhendup Dorji would suffer a devastating defeat in the next election and lost all political relevance. A young Nepali school teacher, Nar Bahadur Bhandari emerged as the new leader. Kazi was ironically tarred as a “Desh Bechwa” by his political opponents. In 1995, Kazi did a U-turn and expressed regret at the annexation and the role he played in it. The couple had to leave Sikkim eventually and settle in Kalimpong. Kazini would die there dreaming of returning to Scotland. Kazi was left alone, and lived a depressing and lonely life. He passed away at the age of 103 in 2009. [4]Sikkim unlike other states in India’s North-East never had a secessionist movement. It remains as of now one of the most peaceful states in the Indian union.Ending this by adding that unreleased documentary directed by Satyajit Ray. I recommend giving it a watch.Sources:Smash and Grab: Annexation of Sikkim by Sunanda K. Datta-RaySikkim: Requiem for a Himalayan Kingdom by Andrew DuffThe Sikkim Saga by Brajbir Saran DasNote: All the images were taken from GoogleFootnotes[1] Ethel Maud Shirran, born 1904[2] Where have all the comrades gone?[3] National Anthem of Sikkim[4] The Pain of losing a Nation