I have only one complaint about this guest column and its first part. It has something to do with her taking responsibility for her views. Ms. Peal is Sikh and writes about the atrocities perpetuated on her community during those dark days. her first part was a first person account of what happened on a train from Calcutta to new Delhi, and it was endearing. that's fine, and I was moved. I even forced a couple hundred contacts on my mailing list to see it in their inboxes.
But in this part, she chose to insert sentences in the passive voice when reporting on the Sikh community and the events of those days. If there was any doubt she was describing her community's pain, that was dispelled by her description of the honor and sacrifices of the Sikh community. Additionally she labored to describe virtuous qualities of the community leaving absolutely no doubt in my mind that she personally was also still hurting from the events of those days. Why then was she using the passive voice construct? Because it suggested to me that she was absolving herself of her views and wanted to avoid taking responsibility. She passed on that responsibility to them and they. This is where Ms. Payal failed to come close to what she set out to achieve by writing these columns; because it cast doubt on her intentions. In this column she suddenly turned into a reporter stuck in 1984 and reporting to us about the riots.
Besides this technicality: It was a shame what had happened then, and unmindful of the other commentators on this board, people must continue to write about it, lest we forget to learn lessons from them.
