What are the problems of using official sources in writing about the history of peasants?

These are the problems in using official sources in writing about the history of peasants:

(i) There are official sources that reflect only British official concerns and interpretation of all events from the outlook and angle of the English. For example, the Deccan Riots Commission was specifically asked to judge whether the level of government revenue demand of the cause of the revolt.

(ii) Most of the events, revolts and happenings have been presented in a bias manner. The colonial government and official had their own political, economic, religious, cultural and social interests. They had always tried to present a sub-standard picture of Indian society, people, tradition, culture and even the achievements.

(iii) The sources have been presented and recorded by such clever and naughty people who have intentionally presented things with false evidences also. For example, the Deccan Riot Commission alter presenting all the findings with such evidences which was utilise to give authenticity to the report of the commission. The commission has presented this fabricated fact that the government demand was not the cause of the peasants’ anger. It was the moneylenders (again Indians) who were to blames. Such argument is found very frequently in British colonial records. This shows that there was a persistent on the part of the colonial government to admit that popular discontent was ever on account of government action.

(v) Official reports, thus are invaluable sources for the reconstruction of history. But they have to be always read the case and just opposed with evidence called from newspapers, unofficial accounts, legal records and, where possible, oral sources.