From the tone in which evidence is recorded, what do you think is the attitude of the report to the facts narrated? What is the Report trying to say through the figures? Can you think of any problem in making long-term generalisations from these figures of two years?
The attitude of the report appears to be official and defensive. The evidence is recorded in a tone that reflects official concerns and interpretations of events. The report tends to present facts in a manner that protects government interests. For instance, the Deccan Riots Commission was asked to judge whether government revenue demand caused the revolt, but it concluded that moneylenders were to blame instead. This reveals a persistent reluctance on the part of the colonial government to admit that popular discontent could ever be due to government action.
Through the figures, the Report attempts to present an official interpretation that absolves the government of responsibility for rural problems. The statistics are used to support predetermined conclusions rather than objectively presenting ground realities. The figures aim to shift blame away from government policies onto other actors like moneylenders and zamindars.
Yes, there are significant problems in making long-term generalisations from figures of just two years. Firstly, two years is an extremely short period to understand long-term historical trends and patterns. Secondly, as the context states, official reports cannot be accepted uncritically and must be read carefully. We need to know who wrote them and why. Thirdly, such limited data should be juxtaposed with evidence from newspapers, unofficial accounts, legal records, and oral sources to arrive at a balanced understanding. Making generalisations from such limited figures risks creating an incomplete or biased picture of historical reality.
Explanation
This question tests students' ability to critically analyze official colonial sources. The textbook emphasizes that the Fifth Report and similar official documents shaped historical understanding but must be read with caution. The key insight is that official reports reflect the biases and interests of those who commissioned them. The Deccan Riots Commission example clearly illustrates how colonial authorities systematically deflected blame from government policies onto moneylenders. Students should understand that limited data from two years cannot capture the complexity of long-term agrarian changes.