A British officer's diary records that the farmers of his district were content with their condition

Why

Meenakshi has hold of a genuine principle: a source written at the time is far better evidence than one written a century later, and historians prize exactly that. But being from the right time does not make a source neutral. This officer was part of the administration being judged, he answered to superiors who rewarded calm districts, and he may never have spoken to a farmer without an interpreter and an audience. Each of those bends what gets written down. The question to ask of any source is not only WHEN it was made but WHO made it and what it cost them to write it. Test: set his diary beside revenue records, petitions the farmers themselves filed, and reports of unrest in the same district, and see whether the picture holds. Arun is right: one source, however close to the events, gives you one view — history is built by placing several against each other.