There has been a dispute within the Maoists regarding the two-point agreement reached between the ruling party and the Maoists on the visit visa issue. Maoist leaders involved in the agreement have come to its defense, while some leaders have questioned the agreement.

Opposition parties, including the Maoists, had been disrupting the House of Representatives since June 13, alleging human trafficking under the guise of a visit visa from the Tribhuvan International Airport immigration and the involvement of the leadership of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Maoist's party secretariat meeting made the resignation of Home Minister Ramesh Akhtar a bottom line. But without taking another formal decision, the leaders within the party have questioned the decision to make it easier for the ruling party in the matter of visit visas.

There was a two-point agreement between the ruling party and the Maoists last Friday after committing to study and investigate the visit visa issue. In order to solve the problems seen in the past regarding immigration and visit visas, the government promised to take concrete steps to make appropriate arrangements for policy, legal and structural reforms by conducting necessary studies and investigations. Since then, the Maoists have retreated from blocking the parliament.

Sources say that the talks between Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba and Maoist President Pushpa Kamal Dahal at Budhanilkanth on May 25, the Maoist 'turned' on the visit visa issue. In that meeting, Home Minister Dahal was ready to agree not to ask for the resignation of the author and without mentioning the formation of a parliamentary or high-level inquiry committee.

Then UML chief whip Mahesh Bertaula and Maoist deputy general secretary and chief whip Hitraj Pandey from the ruling party signed an agreement that the government would help the authority in the visit visa case and that the government would form a committee to study and investigate it.

According to the Maoist leaders, there should be a discussion about the party's readiness to form an inquiry committee as stated by the government on the visit visa. Maoist senior vice-president Narayankaji Shrestha said that it seems necessary to discuss the language of the agreement.

What made such an agreement? What is the language in the agreement, why did such an agreement have to be made? He said, "I have no participation in this agreement." The agenda of the party remains in agreement. He said that if necessary, it will be discussed in the party committee.  Another Maoist leader said that the ruling party has the upper hand in the

agreement. "There has been a discussion within the party that there will be criticism if such an agreement is made," said the leader, "In this case, the party's agenda should have been maintained." The party has become defensive in this agreement. Pandey, the deputy general secretary of Maoist, expressed his belief that the agreement will be implemented in a month. "I signed by agreeing to challenge and faith," he said. 

In Biratnagar on Saturday, Maoist Chairman Dahal said there was a serious reason behind the opening of Parliament. For the benefit of the country and the people, sometimes it may be decided to move forward and sometimes to retreat. The decision to remove the obstruction of the Parliament was made after the agreement to form an inquiry committee within a month," he said. "This is not just a matter for the Home Minister. It is a serious problem that has been going on for a long time, which requires deep study, structural reforms and policy measures.' Dahal claimed that there is no transaction with the Congress.

'I sign with challenge and confidence' 

Hitraj Pandey Chief Whip, Maoist 

Agreed with the ruling party leaving out the opposition RSVP. But the parliament was not comfortable with the agreement, right?

is an attempt to make the same opinion between the opponents. RSVP did not accept the time to sign. President Prachanda tried to reach an agreement between the opposition for three to four days. He said that he would be happy if the demands made by the RSVP were fulfilled. When we did not agree, the federal civil law passed by the parliamentary committee and the citizenship law did not go forward. The government has singled out the budget. There was also a situation where pressure had to be put on it.

It is said that the government will do all the work according to the agreement, your demand is not much seen, is it?

The government has already said that it will form a committee within a month and proceed with the investigation. We put our point in the parliament and said that there should be an investigation. We monitor it.

Why didn't the issue of forming an investigation committee come up in two points within a month?

The Home Minister has expressed his commitment to this in the Parliament. An investigation committee should be formed within a month. 

When the government forms an investigation committee, is your consent mandatory? We have not made a concrete decision on how to form the

committee. There are some themes from the past. There are policy and structural issues. The work of the past committees and commissions was not as smooth as it used to be. The committee should work so that it is implemented.