I find your review of Butalia’s book very interesting, as it brings to light limits, which many reviewers out there have neglected to criticize. I am currently writing a paper for a class at Columbia University about the importance of considering primary sources, such as Butalia’s interviews, in one’s study and understanding of Partition.

I couldn’t agree more with your statement: “On the rare occasions when she does let them speak, we see flickers of what this book might have been.” This has led me to realize that Butalia is not so much uncovering history as much as she is choosing what she wants history to be and finding ways in which she can make history seem more meaningful to her, which leads her to go on and on about why she has written this book.

Anyway, I just wanted to know if you would agree with this realization of mine, that in a way, she is attempting to personalize the “history” she is presenting, and that all her reflections ultimately limit the impact of the actual interviews?