AT PENPOINT
If Pakistan is seen as the East of the Ummah, then Nigeria is the Western. Indeed, Nigeria is not just in Africa, but in its West. Some of the ways the British colonized and then ruled Nigeria seem to have been borrowed from the colonial experience in India, which was much older.
One of the most striking features that the colonialist seems to have imported from India is that of the native states (in India more politely called princely states). If in India there were princes, in Nigeria were chiefs. If wide swathes of India were ruled directly, Nigeria was mostly ruled indirectly through the native states. This was especially true of Northern Nigeria, where the population, and the Emirs, were mostly Hausa and Fulani.
These Hausas and Fulanis were generally Muslim, while the Ibo (in the East) and Yoruba (in the West) were Christian, having converted from animism. These are the main tribes, though there are about 300. The Nigerian polity is divided along tribal lines, which resemble not just the provincial divisions in Pakistan, but also the biradari divisions within the provinces.
One of the main factors in the politics of the country is the Army, which tends to be dominated by northerners. Nigeria has had eight military rulers, of whom five were from the North (though one was a Christian, from a small tribe).
Whatever the common factor, these countries are deserving of study, especially in societies dealing with the military in politics. However, Nigeria may well be most fruitful to study, because it was the first. Pakistan history is most closely mirrored, for it too underwent a secession. However, unlike Nigeria, it could not quell it. There is no Biafra today, but there is Bangladesh.
Like Pakistan, Nigeria’s first PM was assassinated. However, Sir Abubakr Tafawa Bulewa was killed in the course of a coup, the first. Unlike Zulfikar Ali Bhuttto, who was duly hanged in a prison, whatever one might say about the sentence, Sir Abubakr was shot and his body abandoned in a ditch. This was in 1966, and the military then ruled more or less continuously till 1999.
One striking similarity is that politicians’ corruption was used in the 1966 coup, just as in 1958 in Pakistan (and thereafter). However, military rulers in Nigeria have had as bad a record as any, and General Sani Abacha, in particular, was a kleptocrat who raked off billions of dollars from the country. The country being oil-rich, there was a lot of money to be had. As it is, military men in Pakistan have also had opportunities aplenty.
One difference between Nigeria and Pakistan is that there has never really been a coup upon a coup, unless one counts the 1969 takeover by Gen Yahya. Nigeria witnessed a number of such coups. Another difference is that the Nigerian military very soon split off the post of Commander-in-Chief from the President’s, which Pakistani coup leaders avoided. Pakistani coup leaders seem to have been right, for the C-in-C replaced the President in several cases.
Another major difference is that the Pakistani electorate has never elected a former military dictator, but Nigeria has done so twice. The first time, in 1999, Gen Olesegun Obasanjo, the country was coming off military rule, and he may be regarded as a transitional figure. However, the election of Gen Muhammad Buhari in 2015 was a departure, for he was making a comeback after a long period out of office (he had previously ruled from 1983 to 1985). Gen Pervez Musharraf tried, but could not succeed. Imran Khan may well be a similar figure.
It is also worth noting that Gen Yakubu Gowon succeded where successive military governments did not in Pakistan: he divided the country into a multiplicity of states. However, this did not sdtop Nigeria from slipping into civil war, complete with the separation of part as Biafra. This took place in 1967, the same yar as Egypt received a humiliating defeat from Israel in the Six Day War.
The Biafran Civil War ended in 1970, which was the same year as the East Pakistan crisis began to unfold. One of the differences was that the Ibos in Nigeria never claimed to be in a majority, which the Bengalis were. It is also worth noting that the Biafran civil war and the 1971 War were both preceded by an extensive slaughter.
Ibos had gone to the North and setled there, manning the services and carrying out much business. Those Ibo who were in the North or WEst were slaughtered. In a breakdown of discipline, Ibo soldiers, both officers and men, were also killed. This did not happen in East Pakistan, because there were not that many East Pakistanis in either the officer corps or serving in the ranks. However, the Army operation launched on 26 March 1971 is accused of having committed an extensive massacre of intellectuals and students.
A major difference is that there was no interfering neighbour in Nigeria’s case, and certainly no country bigger than it in Africa. India’s help to Bangladesh meant that the Mukti Bahini did not bear the berunt of the fighting, while Biafra had to raise and arm an Army. In neither war did the Seceders beat the Army of the other side. However, in the cas of Banglaesh, ther was the Indian Army.
It is also interesting that in both conflicts, the attackers won. Ultimately, the Nigerian Army conquered Biafra, just as the Indian Army conquered East Pakistan.
It is worth noting that in the late 1980s, and early 1970s, the four major Muslim military powers were rendered ineffective. Nigeria had to handle the Biafran secession to handle, Pakistan the East Pakistani, Egypt had ben left licking its wounds from the Six Day War, while the Turkish armed Forces had carried out a coup in 1971. In 1968, the army of Indonesia, the only other Muslim military power, was busy carrying out a coup, in which president Ahmed Soekarno was replaced by Maj Gen Soeharto.
Coincidence? Perhaps. However, this is the stuff of which conspiracy theories are constructed. To ascribe these preoccupations of the main Muslim armies (and the Nigerian Army was overwhelmingy Hausa and Muslin) to some sort of conspiraxcy to protect the Zionist entity may be to go out on a limb, but the alternative is to seek something about Muslims that inclines them to military rule.
There are two problems with that. First, of the four countries being considered, three have become democracies (though the military looms large in their politics). Second, the militaries concerned are all of British origin (except Turkey, which was influenced by the UK, bt valso by Germany). The only commonality is that the CIA was active against the KGB at the height of thew Cold War, and the CIA is known to use military coups.
Oil was also involved in three countries. Nigerias’ oil region was mostly in Biafran hands, Indonesia is a major oil producer, and Egypt is placed strategically for Middle East oil. Turkey and Pakistan, though, are merely peripheral at best.
Whatever the common factor, these countries are deserving of study, especially in societies dealing with the military in politics. However, Nigeria may well be most fruitful to study, because it was the first. Pakistan’s history is most closely mirrored, for it too underwent a secession. However, unlike Nigeria, it could not quell it.There is no Biafra today, but there is Bangladesh.
