[throwaway638637]

That's just a manner of speaking in former British colonies, or at least the subcontinent. Much of formal speech like a bureaucrat wrote it because, well, the civil service ran India and that's who everyone emulated.

[hbarka]

It’s still passive voice, the kind used when trying to avoid blame or responsibility. So pretty much fits in bureaucratic places.

That’s just…mistakes were made.

[throwup238]

This pattern of writing goes back to the Spanish conquistadors at the very least. They frequently described their actions in a passive voice when doing something they knew was horrible, only to switch to aggrandizing active voice when writing about their successes. It’s a standard way to blur responsibility and present violence as an almost natural “fact” rather than a deliberate action by identifiable agents.

It didn’t escape everyone’s attention though. Bartolomé de las Casas definitely noticed it.

[thoroughburro]

> That's just a manner of speaking in former British colonies, or at least the subcontinent.

Which is still a good example of when you shouldn't use passive voice.

Clarifying where “optimising language to evade a responsibility” evolved does nothing to justify it, which you imply with “that’s just”.