The issue of a special general convention within the Nepali Congress is no longer limited to a process and interpretation of the statute. A power struggle between those who want a radical transformation in the party and those who want to enjoy the status quo has also surfaced. In addition, questions have been raised about the political character, commitment to the agenda, and credibility of some leaders.

There are many questions about the leadership that enjoys the status quo. However, the biggest question is on Shekhar Koirala, who is at the forefront of laying the political foundation for the special general convention. Because he has now abandoned the agenda he started midway and disappeared. The question of why he did this will definitely continue to haunt him in the future.

Why did Koirala stand today as the protector of the leadership that tried to run the party as if nothing had happened in the country on Bhadra 23 and 24, and did not try to move forward from the status quo with the belief that the party should be 'occupied' for its immediate security rather than future-oriented? Leaders and activists who signed in favor of the special general convention are asking all kinds of questions about him. Therefore, today his image has developed as a character who carries an agenda but cannot stick to it.

Young people like Gururaj Ghimire and Devraj Chalise, who are leading the signatories for the special general convention, are young leaders who previously considered Koirala as a political role model. Perhaps without his support, they would not have initially supported the special general convention. According to Chalise, Koirala laid the foundation for the special general convention.

Until Bhadra 23, General Secretary Gagan Thapa was making speeches to hold the general convention by Mangsir 2083. When there was talk that President Sher Bahadur Deuba was trying to push the general convention after the 2084 election, he was taking a stand to hold the general convention by Mangsir 2083. However, Koirala went ahead of Thapa and was pushing the issue of holding a regular general convention by Mangsir 2082.

After the Gen-G movement, Thapa and another General Secretary Bishwa Prakash Sharma also came to Koirala's line. Thapa and Sharma's common conclusion that the general election could not be held without changing the party's policy and leadership was in line with Koirala's line. Koirala's support for holding a regular general convention by Mangsir also began to be signed. The two general secretaries led the agenda of the special general convention. All three leaders were in the strategy of increasing pressure on the leadership through the special general convention and holding a regular general convention in Mangsir itself.

Over time, Koirala retreated from the agenda he had been carrying. When the debate on the special general convention reached a decisive point, Koirala made a 'U-turn'. He has now joined President Sher Bahadur Deuba in the ranks of President Sher Bahadur Deuba by abandoning the agenda of both the regular and special general conventions before the 21 Falgun elections.

Many have viewed Koirala's political 'U-turn' as a tendency to prioritize the balance of power over principles. Some believe that if the special general convention goes ahead, the debate on leadership change within the party will intensify and that the agenda could weaken his power base, which forced him to step down. On the other hand, there is also an argument that he has abandoned the agenda and joined the establishment side due to the signs of gaining Deuba's support. However, Koirala himself has deviated, citing fear of a party split. However, many leaders associated with him argue that if Koirala had carried this agenda from the beginning, he could have changed both the party's policy and leadership and won the party elections by now.

The understanding that today's position that President Deuba has brought to by grooming two general secretaries is the result of Shekhar Koirala's laziness is deeply embedded among the supporters of the special general convention.

Koirala, who was once seen as an 'anti-establishment' and 'reformist' faction, has now reached the political line of the establishment faction, and the workers and the young generation who had hoped and trusted him have been disappointed. Due to the lack of clarity in his stance, he himself has reached the middle ground of politics. Leaders who remain in the middle ground are always in a dilemma whether to move forward or go back.

If we examine Koirala's past, we find the footprint of a similar trend. When the Congress-Maoist coalition government was in power, he joined forces with the UML to wage a rebellion in Koshi Province. He tried to create an image of a rebel leader by standing against the party's formal decision. The rebellion in Koshi Province also put the federal government under psychological pressure. He took the line of cooperation with the UML instead of the Maoist alliance in the federation. Over time, the two parties formed an alliance based on the 7-point agreement between the Congress and the UML on Ashad 17, 2080. On the basis of that, KP Sharma Oli became the Prime Minister on Ashad 30.

Why is Koirala now standing in the line of protecting the leadership? But less than a month after the government was formed, Koirala was seen opposing the alliance against his own policy. Generally, it is a political practice not to oppose the new government for a 100-day 'honeymoon period', giving it the benefit of the doubt. But without even providing this minimum facility, Koirala came out against the government. Questions were raised about his patience and the stability of the political policy he had adopted.

Now, the Congress leadership is at a crucial juncture whether to let the status quo continue for the immediate interests of the party or to rebuild and revitalize it for future generations. The two general secretaries are trying to connect the Congress with the present and future generations by saying that Nepal before and after Bhadra 23 is not the same. The Gen-G movement is not just a wave. It is a product of years of governance instability and this movement is the result of deep dissatisfaction with the traditional leadership. While the two general secretaries are moving towards transformation with this political consciousness, Koirala, who carries the same agenda, is today standing as Deuba's protector.

Why did Koirala, who once raised the debate on leadership change, now stand in the line to protect the leadership? Why could Koirala not move forward with a clear political stance on it when the Gen-G movement has already rejected the current leadership? With the position he has taken now, he has played the role of a protector of the status quo rather than a carrier of change, and he is currently being deeply tested by ordinary leaders and workers.

The tendency to raise an agenda but back down at a decisive moment has also raised questions about his leadership ability. It is not unusual for strategies to change in politics. But changing the agenda repeatedly, opposing one's own decisions, and changing course according to the situation are signs of political instability. This instability did not allow Koirala to establish himself as the alternative leadership of the Congress.