Nepal is generous in offering great opportunities for nation-building but its leaders are famous for missing them. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala is to date the best example of this unseemly phenomenon. As the Jana Andolan II pushed him to the pinnacle of power, people expected him to deliver in the same manner, something substantial, something worth remembering. But he messed up vital issues of the country. Nevertheless, he is secure in his post to the least benefit of the people.

The peace process since the restoration of Parliament was delayed mainly because Koirala did not agree to the abolition of monarchy. The nitty-gritty of arms management, peace agreement and the interim constitution arose simply because of his adamant refusal to declare Nepal a republic. If he had agreed to this popular wish, he would have had an upper hand over Prachanda. But, instead, he made Prachanda dictate him in all issues except republicanism.

Some people credit him for bringing the Maoists into the political mainstream and recommend his name for a Nobel Peace Prize. But is it not going too far? Was mainstreaming of the Maoists possible without the strong will of Prachanda to come to peaceful politics? Was it Koirala’s power of persuasion, if he has any, that induced Prachanda to abandon violence or was he only instrumental for Prachanda’s determination of embracing non-violence is yet to be verified.

Actually there is nothing surprising about G P Koirala missing the historic bus in nation-building. He was endowed with enormous opportunities in the post-1990 era with absolute majority in Parliament several times. But, unluckily, he could never rise above his family bondage, party pressure and foreign strings. His premiership tenures were fraught with corruption scandals, desecration of civil service, negligence of security forces, nepotism and rise of the insurgency. Strangely, he is presiding over, during his latest term, the state that is managing the Maoist arms and armies.

When the parties were frittering away their energy in mutual quarrels in the early 21st century, King Gyanendra launched his campaign to reassert the lost power and position of monarchy in the name of nation-building. But he lost the gamble because of his outdated faith and outstanding selfishness. By what he said and did it was clear that he never understood the historic opportunity laid bare before him to push the nation at least one step forward. Instead, he moved backward with worn-out people and ideas. He assumed absolute power without knowing how to use it for the greater good of the people. Consequently, the people have brought him to a position of a sacrificial lamb.

Nepal is never short of great openings for its leaders to prove their greatness. But somehow they get lost without achievement of something to cherish. The 1990 Jana Andolan was indeed a great storm overwhelming the whole country giving rise to high expectations. Ganeshman Singh emerged as the supreme commander of the movement but he missed the opportunity to perform and left his mark by declining to accept the premiership. How he would have performed is completely a different matter. Instead, he installed a man in his place, who could keep the whole nation in good humour but not happy in earnest. Krishna Prasad Bhattarai spent all his time in settling the dust thrown up during the people’s movement. Sher Bahadur Deuba too had an opportunity to prove his mettle, but he indulged in breaking his own party, breaking the parliament and, in the process, breaking his own neck.

B P Koirala goes down in history as the first elected prime minister, a great political thinker and a great littérateur. But he too missed the opportunity in nation-building as he had to spend more time in jail than in power. King Mahendra was the man who was aware of the historic opportunity he had grabbed from B P Koirala in moving forward. He succeeded in leaving a legacy of remarkable infrastructure but he had to pay a high economic price for earning political loyalty. He made his presence felt but at the nation’s cost.

King Birendra inherited a well-established political system, economic order and international goodwill. He demonstrated good intention in development, in democratisation as well as in reconciliation with the people’s power. But he too failed to lift the nation up to a height that would add, in turn, to his own stature. He kept himself too busy in wild goose chase of his zone-of-peace proposal. King Tribhuwan is a contradiction in history, who could be credited for pledging an epoch-making Constituent Assembly but he could be equally discredited for not fulfilling it. He remains an enigma deserving a reevaluation.

History is staring Prachanda in the face to make Nepal great. Will he also miss the bus as his predecessors did by too many compromises once they came to power? That is really scary.

Shrestha is a freelance journalist