Official sources present several problems for historians writing about peasants. Firstly, these sources reflect official concerns and interpretations of events rather than the perspectives of peasants themselves. They are written from the viewpoint of the colonial administration, which had its own interests in maintaining control.

Secondly, official sources often display a persistent reluctance to admit that popular discontent arose from government actions. For example, the Deccan Riots Commission was specifically asked to judge whether government revenue demand caused the revolt. Despite presenting evidence, the commission concluded that moneylenders were to blame, not the government. This pattern appears frequently in colonial records.

Thirdly, official enquiries were conducted by state authorities who were alarmed by rebellion and keen on restoring order. Their goal was to formulate policies to establish peace, not necessarily to understand peasant grievances objectively. This affects the reliability of their findings.

However, official reports remain invaluable sources for reconstructing history. The solution is to read them carefully and juxtapose them with other evidence such as newspapers, unofficial accounts, legal records, and oral sources. This helps historians get a more complete picture of peasant history beyond official interpretations.