Three Sources, One Village: Dating the Deccan Riots
A Class 10 student in a Pune-district school is preparing a project on the Deccan Riots for the district history fair, which is ten days away. Her village, Karanje, has left her exactly three sources. First, a colonial police report of August 1876 recording that 43 houses were looted and 61 bonds destroyed. Second, her great-grandmother's oral account, recorded on a phone in 2019, saying the bonds were burnt in 1873, before the rains failed. Third, a moneylender's ledger covering 1872 to 1876 that lists 14 debts, with two pages torn out. The school library has nothing else and the internet is down. The rubric says the project must name the source most reliable for dating the event, justify the choice, and state what evidence would overturn the conclusion. The student is tempted to use the oral account because it is her own family's, and the police report because it has a date printed on it.
1. Which source should she treat as most reliable for dating the riot, and how should she present the 1873 date?
Read the worked answer
Judge each source on three tests: how close it is to the event, why it was made, and whether anything independent confirms it.
The ledger is closest in time and was written for private accounting, not for the government, so it is not shaped by the fear of appearing weak. But it records debts, not the attack, so alone it cannot date the riot. The police report was compiled within a year on official duty; its date is administrative and reliable, though its purpose is to minimise and control. The oral account, recorded 146 years later, is strong on experience and sequence but weak on years.
Recommendation: date the riot to 1875, citing the ledger entry and the police report together, and present 1873 as family memory of the order of events (bonds burnt, then rains failed) rather than as a date. She must also flag the torn pages as a limit, not hide them.
2. How should she handle the torn ledger pages and the language of the police report in the project?
Read the worked answer
Both are evidence of the limits of the record, and a good project says so out loud.
The report calls the participants a mob and rioters, never debtors. That vocabulary is not neutral: it frames a revolt against moneylenders as ordinary crime and keeps the official focus on restoring order. She should quote two such phrases and set them beside the ledger's flat entries of principal and interest, showing how the same event reads differently when money is the subject.
The torn pages could be concealment of debts or simply damage; she cannot know which, so she must not fill the gap. She should write a short source note: the ledger accounts for 14 debts while the report claims 61 bonds, which does not prove the report wrong, because the ledger may belong to one moneylender among several. That distinction between a contradiction and a difference in scale is exactly the reasoning the rubric rewards.
3. What single additional source would most improve the project, and why that one?
Read the worked answer
She needs a source independent of both the state and her own family.
The strongest candidate is the record of civil suits for debt filed in the sub-judge's court for the taluka in 1875 and 1876, or the district collector's correspondence for those years. Court filings would show which moneylenders were active, how much was owed and whether suits collapsed after the disturbances, giving an outside check on both the 14 debts and the 61 bonds.
A second possibility is a vernacular newspaper published in Pune at the time, which would show how literate opinion, neither colonial nor familial, described the events. She should choose one and say clearly what it can and cannot settle: a court record can confirm scale and timing, but it cannot tell her how villagers understood what they were doing. Naming that remaining gap is itself part of the answer.