where there any drawbacks of official records of British
Answers
An official history is a work of history which is sponsored, authorised or endorsed by its subject. The term is most commonly used for histories which are produced for a government.[1] The term also applies to commissions from non-state bodies as company histories, i.e. histories of commercial companies. An official biography (one written with the permission, cooperation and perhaps participation of its subject or the subject's heirs) is often known as an authorized biography.
Official histories frequently have the advantage that the author or authors have been given access to archives, allowed to interview subjects and use other primary sources that would be closed to independent historians. Because of the necessarily close relationship between author and subject, such works may be (or be perceived to be) partisan in tone and to lack historical objectivity. Such bias varies and some official histories are little more than exercises in public relations or propaganda; in other cases the authors have retained sufficient independence to be able to express negative as well as positive judgements about their subjects.
Answer:
One important source is the official records of the British administration. The British believed that the act of writing was important. Every instruction, plan, policy decision, agreement, investigation had to be clearly written up.
Explanation: