After the formation of a minority government led by the UML after the mid-term elections in 2051, the eighth meeting of the parliament (the first after the mid-term) was held. Various comments began to be made about the role played by the parliamentarians and parties in national issues. Some analyzed that the eighth parliament meeting was conducted as a shadow of the government.

The main opposition party, the Nepali Congress, was making public statements in various media outlets that it had not been able to properly address national issues such as Tanakpur, the budget, and Dasdhunga. After 2048, when the Congress was in power and the UML was in the main opposition, the UML government seemed to have forgotten the issues that were raised in Parliament. One of those issues was the national issue, the ‘Tanakpur Treaty dispute.’

The then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala called the Tanakpur Treaty with India in 2048 a simple understanding. The dispute began from there. Since then, the leftist parties, including the main opposition UML, have been demanding a reevaluation, saying that Nepal lost its sovereignty in the Tanakpur Treaty.

This became a complicated issue after the Supreme Court ruled that the Tanakpur agreement between the two countries was ‘not an agreement but a treaty’ and that ‘the decision had to be passed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament’. Girija Prasad tried to get the agreement passed by a simple majority, but it was not possible. Former Speaker Damannath Dhungana had expressed his dissatisfaction saying that the eighth session had ignored the parliamentary committee on Tanakpur, which was under discussion until the seventh session.

Dhungana had asked, ‘Where is Tanakpur?’

He had complained that the government and the opposition had not reached a final decision on Tanakpur in the eighth session, taking their own stances. He had said, ‘The eighth session was no different from the pre-eighth session session.’ In this session too, political parties did not seem to pay attention to concrete national issues other than playing their respective drums.' Adding to the context that Tanakpur is no longer in the parliament, he said that national consensus is necessary when no party has a majority. Adding to the context that he tried to resolve Tanakpur when he was the Speaker, he gave it more attention.

He had formed a joint parliamentary committee in the fifth session to resolve the Tanakpur dispute. Even after the Supreme Court ruled that the Tanakpur Treaty should be passed by a two-thirds majority, three meetings of the parliament were held. But none of the meetings made any attempt to find a solution. The then UML General Secretary Madan Kumar Bhandari had demanded a two-thirds majority for the Tanakpur Treaty, which was presented in the parliament by the then Water Resources Minister Laxman Ghimire with the aim of passing it by a simple majority.

Congress supreme leader Ganeshman Singh had also written to Congress party president Krishna Prasad Bhattarai not to pass the Tanakpur resolution by a simple majority. That is why the process was stopped in the previous parliament. When Tanakpur was in the crosshairs of two big parties, former Speaker Dhungana played a coordinating role.

UML had even made Tanakpur an anti-Congress slogan in the mid-term elections. When he was in the opposition, he had raised the issue of the Tanakpur Treaty and heated the streets and the House. There was also a huge loss of life and property across the country during the protests over Tanakpur. But after coming to power, the UML government was accused of forgetting Tanakpur. In that background, former Speaker Dhungana had made his views on Tanakpur public.