Although the government aimed to develop water resources by attracting the private sector through an open economy, the government side believed that ``transnationalism'' was an obstacle to bringing in investment in project construction.

The then Minister of State for Water Resources, Lakshman Ghimire, in a statement of national importance on 24th March 2050, hinted at the opposition and asked them to take a realistic approach to water resources development. He said that the world's second largest water resource-rich country could be limited only to paper, and said, 'If the Arun-3 project is not implemented, it will be unfortunate for the country.'

After Tanakpur was in confusion, the issue of using the water resources that could come from it was also in limbo. A proposal of public importance put forward by MP Prakashchandra Lohani of Rashtriya Prajatantra Party was discussed in the House of Representatives meeting on 26 Chait 2050. In that resolution, the parliamentarians held the opinion that the agreement regarding Tanakpur has yet to be approved. In particular, the ruling party said that the views of the parties including the main opposition UML in the parliament are always negative towards India. RPP's Lohani also claimed that the government has made an additional agreement in the agreement regarding Tanakpur. 

The dispute regarding Tanakpur, which started from the second session of Parliament, was not resolved even by the sixth session. The parliamentarians were of the opinion that water is directly linked to sovereignty and the issue of natural resources can be linked to political power. The idea that India will take all the rivers of Nepal and capture the resources of the country has been publicized many times. 

Arun-3, which was supposed to be built with loans and grants from donors including the World Bank, was also being debated about national interests. The voices of the main opposition UML, campaigners and environmentalists were loud in the streets and the House. The parties including Pratikshi did not agree with the provision to purchase electricity in US dollars while constructing projects like Khimti and Bhotekoshi. The Supreme Court called the Tanakpur agreement a treaty because the government called it an agreement. But since it is a matter of utilization and distribution of natural resources and three, the Supreme Court called it a treaty .

In Article 126 of the Constitution of the Dominion of Nepal 2047, it was mentioned that the allocation of natural resources and their use must be approved by two-thirds of the members of parliament present at the joint meeting of both houses. According to the court's decision, Tanakpur should have been approved by two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. For that, the agreement of the parties including the main opposition UML was necessary .  But especially the left-wing parties were raising questions about India's participation in the use of water resources. There were also questions against Arun . 

Even though the Supreme Court called the Tanakpur agreement a treaty, an all-party parliamentary committee was formed for agreement in the second session. But even until the sixth session, there was no proposal acceptable to all. There was widespread interest in the impasse. An expert commented and said, "There is a danger of blocking the development chain due to the ultra-nationalist perspective". The government and the opposition parties should come to an agreement and move forward.'