The sources each offer a different account of whether Gandhi was not a good political leader. Source 1 mostly disagrees and the opinion is that he is a good leader. Source 2 off a balanced view of affairs giving both positive leadership qualities yet also putting forward negative ones too.

Source 1 is written by Gandhi himself so may lack in neutrality yet states “I have entered upon my mission in the hope that they as Englishmen born to enjoy the fullest personal liberty and freedom will not fail to rise to their status and will not be grudging the ryots the some measure of liberty and freedom.” This both agrees and disagrees with the question that Gandhi was not a good political leader as it is saying he is trying to peacefully fight the regime yet also it highlights his inability to halt the almost inevitable oppression the English will enforce unto the Indians.

Source 2 is written by Lord Chelmsford, the viceroy. This puts him in a good position to judge whether Gandhi is a good leader as he is one himself and can assess his rival’s ability to lead. It states Gandhi is “a man of great saintliness of character, an ascetic”. This means Chelmsford sees Gandhi as a good man with potential to drum up support. However he goes on to write Gandhi is “hopelessly unpractical and unversed in everyday affairs”. This shows that Gandhi was not a good political leader as he is not rounded in terms of his ability to lead, he is only good in the eyes of Chelmsford at self-discipline and fighting for independence. However, Chelmsford also goes on to say “the task of dealing with him is much more difficult than if he was a mere agitating politician”. This suggests that Gandhi is a good political leader as he difficult for his opponents to combat and eventually topple.

Source 3 is written by Arvind Nehra.