Nationalism has always been contentious. Throughout history, we have witnessed how politics has shaped it, how certain elite groups have hijacked its agency, and how it has been a tool for entering the voters' minds and, as such, an election tool.

The world, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, had turned unipolar, with democratic structures and capitalism taking the forefront, cornering far-right nationalists into a minority.

Globalisation, regionalisation, multilateral and bilateral frameworks, and institutions have proliferated.

But over the last decade, we have seen the far rights movement resurging with historical precedents such as Brexit, countries looking inwards by voting for candidates with nationalist agendas.

Left-wing and capitalism have played a crucial role as well. Its inefficiencies and weaknesses have contributed to today's world. Left-wing, historically, has believed in the democratic process of prioritising people's collective freedom, imagining a socio-economically inclusive and equal world and counterbalancing the right-wing nationalist movement.

However, because of the capitalist structure, things have instead been destabilised. Money (profit) has taken over as the primary importance. Proverbs like "No money, no honey" and "Dhewa maru kasu garu" have been popularised. One can't imagine a life without money.

Everybody is chasing money so much that collective efforts required for a cohesive society have started to diminish with the prioritisation of individual luxury. The systemic barriers have grown large enough. The contrast between the rich and the poor (haves and have-nots) is apparent.

Capitalism has always been portrayed as the mechanism for growth and global good, but it has inherent limitations. Its individualistic nature is very similar to right-wing ideologies, prioritising national interests and economic protectionism. Multinational and tech corporations have thrived and gained so much power at the disposal of public welfare that people have begun to lose faith in traditional government. People have started thinking about alternative governance structures, and right-wing politics are beginning to surface again.

Not only that, the role of organisations like the United Nations and SAARC has also been questioned. The use of veto or abstain by countries with vested interests in protecting allies irrespective of the issues, that is, ignorance towards Mother Earth and its inhabitants, is hypocrisy at its highest.

If I am allowed to name all these phenomena, I will not hesitate to call it "Ultra-nationalism". Putting a country first over others, even if it is unfair, creates challenges in another country, prosperity one country at the cost of the other.

There are abundant examples of such phenomena in the recent past:

• climate change inaction
• extractive policies in developing and least developed countries
• direct/indirect influence over politicians for favourable strategic interest
• meddling in the affairs of other countries to continue its dominance

Do you think these are nationalism in its true sense? Is putting the country first at the cost of others an ethical strategy? Do you think today's leadership prioritises indigenous people, ethnic groups and marginalised over their national agendas?

They claim such thoughts distort nationalist spirit, bringing a fraction within communities. Doesn't that mean their rights to represent and voice concerns are oppressed? Those vulnerable and always at the bottom of the pyramid are further pushed down. What happens to their language? Will they enjoy linguistic freedom beyond their private space and use it for education and officially within government mechanisms?

These questions often paint a gloomy picture, at least to me. I see a need for advocacy such that all those in power understand that "nationalism" isn't about assimilation. It's a world where indigenous peoples, ethnic groups, marginalised people and disadvantaged people can live their way of life, practise their culture and embrace their language and belief systems. Therefore, it is about diversity, dignity and equity, not division. It's a scenario where nations exist within nations where every inhabitant of Mother Earth can co-exist in harmony, love and peace.

What does this mean in Nepal? It's about federalisation in its true sense, where power, responsibility and accountability get decentralised. People's sufferings are prioritised for remediation, rethinking a country where all its inhabitants feel a sense of belonging and do not feel dominated or oppressed in any form whatsoever.

Marginalised people have representation and voice locally, federally and in the central government in a practical sense, not limited to laws. However, the tendency of the abuse of power by the few privileged within such marginalised groups also needs to be counter-checked.

Aryal is a Chartered Accountant