The second week of Mangsir will mark 34 years since the signing of the Tanakpur Treaty between Nepal and India. The issue of the agreement made by the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala during his visit to India in Mangsir 2048 to provide India with a 577-meter high land area, or about 2.9 hectares, on the left side of the Tanakpur Dam, which is located in the Indian border market in Kanchanpur, across the Mahakali River, was controversial.

Prime Minister Koirala was accused of giving India permission to use Nepali land for the dam. According to the agreement, the Indian side would provide 10 megawatts of electricity to Nepal annually as a goodwill gesture. But at that time, the opposition parties, including the UML, had made the Tanakpur Agreement an 'issue' that would undermine Nepal's sovereignty.

The main opposition party, the UML, and the opposition parties had concluded that Prime Minister Koirala had made a treaty with India, not an agreement. Prime Minister Koirala, on the other hand, had maintained that it was an understanding, not a treaty. UML had maintained that it was a treaty and that it should be implemented only after being passed by a two-thirds majority in parliament.

As the conflict between the ruling party and the opposition increased, the country was agitated under the UML leadership. There was also loss of property and lives during the agitation. The Supreme Court had ruled that the agreement was a treaty, not the Tanakpur Agreement, on November 10, 2049. According to the court's decision, the Tanakpur Treaty had to be passed by a two-thirds majority in parliament. After that, the movement subsided somewhat. But in 2049 Falgun, the UML, led by the leader of the main opposition party in the National Assembly and UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, went on a visit to India to obtain more information about Tanakpur.

The Koirala government, which was in trouble due to the court's decision, had devised a strategy to change the Treaty Act and get it passed by a simple majority in parliament. Because at that time, the ruling party did not have a two-thirds majority in parliament. The government had also registered a proposal in parliament as per the strategy to get the treaty passed by a simple majority in parliament.

But Congress supreme leader Ganeshman Singh wrote to party president Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and protested, saying that passing Tanakpur by a simple majority would be like signing a death warrant. His letter had put the government in even more trouble. The letter from Supreme Leader Ganeshman was called a letter bomb. There was a huge uproar over the letter at the time. The letter was sent when the conflict between Koirala and Singha was on the surface. The proposal put forward in Parliament at that time was blocked.

The mid-term elections of 2051 brought the then main opposition party, UML, to the government, which had taken the Tanakpur issue from the streets to the parliament. After the government was formed, the Tanakpur issue did not receive much priority. The then Speaker Ramchandra Poudel himself took the initiative and called for an all-party meeting on 16 Poush 2051 to bring Tanakpur to a conclusion.

The meeting discussed the court's decision, the parliamentary committee formed at that time, and the proposal submitted by the Koirala government. But even in the four-hour-long meeting, no agreement could be reached on the issue. It was agreed to put the issue on hold for the time being. While in opposition, the UML, which had been saying that Tanakpur should be passed by two-thirds and that the treaty with India was unequal, was in trouble. Being a minority government, it could not make a decision of its own accord.

There was no possibility of any decision being made in the all-party meeting. Instead, the meeting related to the Tanakpur Treaty was made a subject of jokes and laughter. The conversations that took place during the discussion were strange. The ruling party and the opposition were in a dilemma as to what to decide now? What to tell the press? How to proceed now. Some of the dialogues between the ruling and opposition party MPs that Kantipur Daily correspondents overheard while sitting outside the meeting room were as follows:

– If a joint parliamentary committee is formed, our view will be the same. If we have to submit a proposal in the House, our view will be the same, what should we do?

–We are ready to give two-thirds, we are also ready to review the treaty . 

–The government will put forward a proposal with its point of view in the House, and the opposition will express the same kind of response, right? 

–So, the government will put forward its point of view, and the opposition will give its response, right?  (Loud laughter in the hall) . 

–On the day the Tanakpur resolution is passed, the UML has proposed that the Deputy Speaker should preside over the House . 

–Earlier, the Speaker had made comments in favor of the government, but now the Deputy Speaker has even reached out to the government .

–No, too much time has passed, what should we decide ? 

–Let's decide to bring a proposal in the next session (no, no) .

–Should we bring a proposal to 'revise' the treaty ?(Humour) 

–What news will we give today? Today too, there was a serious discussion about Tanakpur? If we talk about anything else, it will get into a controversy.

–Now, we won't say whether another meeting will be held or not, we won't say to the press that there was a detailed discussion.

–No, we have reached a conclusion. Let's say that we could not reach an agreement, or that the talks were canceled. Let's decide now, even if it's just a matter of what questions will be raised in the House tomorrow and what the minister will answer.

–Should we say that we accept whatever Arjun Narsingh KC, Kamal Thapa and Subash Chandra Nembang bring?

–Should we give news that the opposition will occupy the podium tomorrow? (Laughter)

–Let's decide today whether we can occupy the podium tomorrow or not.

–If it is not possible to surround, can we shake hands or not ?

–Is that the all-party consensus ?

–Who will preside tomorrow, the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker ?

–What will we do if even the marshal cannot separate the fight between the minister and the MP ? Who will get beaten up ? (Laughter on laughter)

–Let's decide something .

–Let's say there was a serious discussion in a cordial atmosphere . What else can we say ? No way .

–So the decision of today's discussion will be announced on the radio tomorrow evening ?

–Let's say there was a discussion, but let's not say it is ongoing .

–We will not tell the press .

The meeting ended without any decision after the dialogue between the MPs that day . Congress Chief Whip Chiranjeevi Wagle, who left the meeting, hesitated to respond to Kantipur and said that the detailed discussion took place in a cordial atmosphere. UML Chief Whip Devi Prasad Ojha had said, ‘Don’t talk about the final decision. The talks are ongoing – don’t talk about the rest. We had a discussion. A detailed discussion. A detailed discussion took place in a cordial atmosphere. Go.’