Captain Blumburtt & the Dazzling Diamonds - Part I
Splendid topic, mini-inferno! A thread dedicated to ol' Cap'n Blumby was long overdue and he is a character whom I can really sink my teeth into. Bravo.
Been meaning to reply earlier but was busy until now.
First off, I'm well aware that the Indy movies aren't strict when dealing with historical facts & events so, please, bear with me...
---
I don't find it likely that Captain Blumburtt would have taken the stone for glory of The Empire. Perhaps he might have in the 1700s or 1800s but it's doubtful in 1935, as he was living during a different colonial era and much in India had changed. However, the thought is very intriguing so let's get down to the nitty-gritty details.
RETURNING THE SANKARA STONE / WHY?
1) The Captain obviously didn't take the Shiva Lingam because he was one of the good guys in the story. Right? Just like all of the 1930s Hollywood & UK movies dealing with the British Raj in India, people like him weren't the villains.
2) At the time of "Doom", the British Indian Army hadn't engaged in armed conflict for 14 years. Apart from the civil disobedience protests & occasional public riots, this period (1921-1935) was the longest stretch of peace in the British Raj's 200-year history. That's a remarkably long time when compared to the staggering amount of military campaigns in India throughout the previous hundred years (non-stop from 1837-1902). Furthermore, our fictional province of Pankot was located on the North East Frontier, a region that hadn't seen any armed conflict in
*40 YEARS*!
(There was the Second Mohmand Campaign in 1935 but that was far away in the North West and settled quickly).
Lord Kitchener's reforms stipulated that supporting police matters was one of the Indian Army's main obligations so, due to the relative tranquility at the time, the forces in the North East had long been accustomed to playing a police role. The movie reflected this as the troops were on a "routine inspection tour", much like a police patrol, and Blumburtt, at the dinner table, did inquire about Indy's accusation of theft. Therefore, it would've/should've/could've been part of the Captain's mandate to ensure that the stolen property was returned to its rightful owners (kidnapped children included).
3) With all the political/religious tension & cries for national freedom going on in India during those days, grabbing SACRED DIAMONDS away from POOR, INNOCENT PEOPLE would have probably been a bad decision. The news would've spread. Gandhi's calls for non-violence didn't always resonate 100%. Riots did happen, with police & civilians being killed by mobs so taking the Sankara Stone could have flung the flames of discontent even further, provoking more unrest. The British were trying to hang on to India and such a gamble wouldn't be playing their cards right. If the thought ever entered Blumburtt's mind, I like to think that he'd be aware of the possible consequences.
(If it's OK with the Mods, I'm going to split my reply into 3 parts to avoid one giant, monster post.)