A Broken Mirror: How the Similarities Between India and Nigeria Led to Their Differences

On January 26th, 2000, India celebrated their Republic day, commemorating their fiftieth year as a sovereign, secular, and democratic Republic. India's Republic day was also celebrated by the Indian High Commission and Indian community in Nigeria. The celebration in Nigeria showed goodwill between Nigeria and India, two nations that, according to Indian High Commissioner in Nigeria, Atish Sinha, "share the same historical and cultural-background." Sinha was referring to India and Nigeria's shared experiences as former British colonies, and their similarities facing the problems common to poor governments ruling over large and diverse populations. Yet, these same similarities are also differences, in that they only share broad characteristics. The actual experiences of these nations are drastically different, and have led them down dissimilar paths. Compared to Nigeria, India's experiences living under and gaining independence from colonialism has helped India maintain its nation's confidence in democracy and integrate its population's diversity into its government.

As harmful as British colonialism was to the traditional arts, beliefs, and economic freedom of colonial India, in many ways the legacy of colonialism formed the basis of India's current levels of stability. Great Britain imposed direct rule in India, placing British officials throughout India and integrating Indians into their bureaucratic system. The British brought western education and English language to India, to make Indians more useful to imperialist Britain. Founding leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru were educated in Europe, where they were infused with western rhetoric and philosophy. When Great Britain eventually pulled out of India, India's exposure to institutions, education, and democratic ideals led to India's adoption of colonial political institutions. "(India's) main political institutions have not evolved from within her society and culture. On the contrary, these are colonial transplants. And yet the legitimacy of these institutions is not questioned by India's main political parties." India's confidence in the democratic system has enabled the state to maintain legitimacy in the face of extreme cultural pluralism, increased social demands on the government, and drastic changes in leadership. While the problems that India faces are not easily resolvable, "India has developed a political system where the norms of democracy are widely shared by all major political parties and social groups, although they might differ radically in their basic ideological positions." This confidence in democracy, introduced to India by colonialism, has served as an important unifying force for a diverse people.

Nigeria's experience as a British colony was not as involved. Great Britain's interest in Nigeria was far less than in India, so their investment in Nigeria was also far less. Great Britain only occupied the southeastern coastal tip of Nigeria, and only ruled directly in the south. Throughout the colonialist era, the majority of Nigerians never saw a European, much less had any direct dealings with the colonial system. Only the elite and Nigerians living amongst the colonialists in the south were educated by Great Britain, learned English, and were integrated into the colonial bureaucracy. Thus, only a few out of Nigeria's great population were taught how to work in a democratic system. Overall, Nigeria does not share India's confidence in democracy, as exemplified by several coups and revolution that have rocked the country since independence. Rather than faith in the democratic system, Nigerians, like many third word countries, associate democracy with wealth. Thus, the legitimacy of the state is based on performance, rather than ideology, and "calls for better leadership and the welcome initially extended to some military regimes suggest that Nigerians' highest priorities are economic security and rule of law." A study of Nigerian university students shows that, while they believe that democracy is useful now, they would be as willing to adopt an authoritarian government if it could deliver more to its people.
Another significant difference between colonialism in India and Nigeria was the way the two nations gained their independence. India's independence came after almost a decade of mass movements and organized agitation against the colonial government. The anti-colonial movement was centered around charismatic leaders and the formation of the Indian National Congress, which used nonviolence and public embargos to send their message. In this way, India's struggle for independence "as a whole was constitutionalist and liberal in nature. The movement as a whole always remained under the control of national leaders who formed policy in the spirit of accommodation and consensus." The emphasis of the movement was on consensus and unity and the nature of the struggle was a nationalistic endeavor. India's struggle for independence created a greater sense of nationalism, and the success of the movement granted greater legitimacy to the leading organizations. Great Britain gradually withdrew from India over the course of 50 years.
In contrast, Nigeria's road to independence was much shorter. There was very little fight for independence, and the protests and strikes that did take place were weak and led by a very small political party of elites. Northern Nigeria was annexed after World War I, and the rest of Nigeria gained its independence after World War II, in part because of Nigeria's participation in the war and in part because Great Britain was disillusioned with the idea of colonialism after losing India. Great Britain withdrew over only ten years, leaving Nigeria with little resistance, limited infrastructure, and a very weak understanding of how to rule itself as a unit. Whereas India had emerged from its independence movement with a belief in their leaders, strong political parties, and a greater sense of nationalism, Nigeria was left floundering with no unifying forces or real understanding of their new government.

In many ways Nigeria's experience with colonialism both caused and exacerbated ethnic tensions. Nigeria is a product of imposed political borders created during the Berlin West Africa Conference by colonialist nations. In this way, various peoples found themselves within the arbitrary borders of a new national label. But, this national label alone was unable to unite the various groups, who were extremely diverse and had no common history before colonialism. Great Britain intensified the ethnic tension by only creating a stronghold along the southeastern coast, the lands of the Igbo, one of Nigeria's four ethnic groups. The Igbo were educated by the British and integrated into British systems, giving them an advantage after independence. The Igbo were initially able to gain power in the government and the military, and eventually attempted to split from the rest of the nation in a violent revolution. Unlike India, who were united by strong political parties and their movement for independence, Nigeria had very few unifying points. The result is a nation strife with religious and ethnic violence, where the population identifies more with their differences than with their national commonality

Overall, the similarities between India and Nigeria are not as significant as their differences. Their experiences under colonialism were extremely different, as are the results of those experiences. While neither country is considered an exemplary democracy, India has been able to maintain its democratic status while Nigeria has undergone numerous regime changes and coups. Currently, Nigeria is an electoral Democracy, in that it elects its leaders through free and fair elections, although the elections are frequently debated. Yet, India has become a liberal democracy, one that is based on elections, as well as a strong rule of law and citizen's rights. While India's diversity and poverty make its government vulnerable, it may continue to draw on its colonialist foundation in the future. In contrast, it is debatable whether Nigeria will be able to develop into a liberal democracy, or if will succumb to another set of coups and system changes. "Too much had been asked of Nigeria: that it forgo ethnic identity for the promise of nation-building; that it develop, almost overnight, a culture of democracy; that it temper its expectations of what independence would bring when those expectations were not met." Overall, without a foundation in unity, education, and democratic ideals, Nigeria will have to find a separate path than India.