India is similar to Nigeria in many ways. Like Nigeria, it is a country of many linguistic nationalities. Like Nigeria, it is a former British colony. Like Nigeria, India inherited from the British at independence a chaotic federation – a federation that ignored the country’s many nations, and in which the nations were split and spliced for British purposes, and for administrative convenience. The only difference is that India is very much larger than Nigeria. In population and land area, India is about seven times the size of Nigeria. Whereas Nigeria has about 300 linguistic nations, India has about 2000.
Like Nigeria, the Indian federation was very unstable after independence. Within three years, the far northern peoples seceded from India and formed the new countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Even then, what remained of India continued to be unstable. To stabilize the country, many Indians began to propose that the Indian federation should be restructured – in such a way that its states would be based on the linguistic nations and would respect the boundaries of the nations. The similarities with Nigeria in these respects are also clear. The Nigerian federation plunged into big troubles almost immediately after independence. Attempts by the eastern parts of Nigeria to secede led to a civil war. The victory over secession did not end Nigeria’s instability. In fact, inter-ethnic hostilities have been escalating and bloody inter-ethnic and religious conflicts growing. To stabilize Nigeria, many Nigerians then began to advocate that the Nigerian federation should be restructured –and that the linguistic nations be used as basis of its states.
The details proposed (and ultimately adopted) in India are very similar to the details being proposed in Nigeria now. What the Indians proposed was that India should respect its linguistic nations (or the principle of “linguistic homogeneity”), use them as the basis for states of the Indian federation, preserve “linguistic homogeneity”,and eliminate the practice of splitting and splicing up the linguistic nations. What many Nigerians are suggesting now is identical. They are suggesting that we should stop splitting and splicing up our linguistic nations; that each of our large linguistic nations (Hausa-Fulani in the North, Yoruba in the South-west plus the Yoruba of Kwara and Kogi, and the Igbo of the South-east plus the Igbo of Agbor and Asaba) should constitute a state; and that the small linguistic nations of the North-east, Middle Belt and South-south should negotiate to form states – probably one in the North-east, two in the Middle Belt, and two in the South-south. This is precisely the kind of solution that the Indians finally adopted, resulting in a total of 28 states in the Indian Union. In Nigeria it will result in about eight states.
But the above represents only the first half of the task of restructuring our federation. The second half concerns the sharing of powers, responsibilities, and resources, between the Federal Government and the state governments. The principles behind this have been spelt out again and again by some of the highest and best of our lawyers. Here is how one of them, Professor ItseSagay, sums it up:
In a federation, each government – – – exists, not as an appendage of another government (e.g. the federal or central government) but as an autonomous entity in the sense of being able to exercise its own will on the conduct of its affairs free from direction by any government. Thus, the Central Government on the one hand and the State Governments on the other hand are autonomous in their respective spheres.
As Wheare put it, “the fundamental and distinguishing characteristic of a federal system is that neither the central nor the regional governments are subordinate to each other, but rather, the two are co-ordinate and independent.”
Nwabueze has identified the following additional characteristics in a federal system:
• The power sharing arrangement should not place such a preponderance of power in the hands of either the national or regional government to make it so powerful that it is able to bend the will of the others to its own.
• Federalism presupposes that the national and regional governments should stand to each other in a relation of meaningful independence resting upon a balanced division of powers and resources. Each must have powers and resources sufficient to support the structure of a functioning government, able to stand on its own – – -.
• From the separate and autonomous existence of each government and the plenary character of its powers within the sphere assigned to it by the constitution flows the doctrine that the exercise of these powers is not to be impeded, obstructed or otherwise interfered with by the other government, acting within its powers.
The architects of the restructuring of the Indian federation were very powerfully motivated by only one thing, namely the objective of making their country orderly, stable and prosperous. Therefore, they followed the above principles of federalism very conscientiously. They set out the following list of “exclusive” powers for the states: public order; police; education; local government; roads and transport; agriculture; land and land revenue; forests; fisheries; industry and trade (limited); state Public Service Commissions; and Courts (except the Supreme Court of India). They also laid down another list of subjects, the Concurrent List, on which the states and the centre can make laws. This list includes criminal laws and their administration; economic and social planning; commercial and industrial monopolies; shipping and navigation on the inland waterways; drugs; ports; courts and civil procedures.
According to Prof.Sagay, “ A Federal Government should exercise powers exclusively only in the following areas: National Defence, Foreign Relations, Currency, Exchange Control, Telecommunications, Immigration, Customs & Excise, Copyright, Patents and Designs, Citizenship and Naturalisation, Shipping in external waters”.
In the matter of allocation of funds, Indians have from time to time reviewed the situation.In 1988, the share of the states was raised to 85% and the share of the Union was set at 15% – apart from the fact that each state can legislate and raise taxes of its own.
By thus respecting their country’s various linguistic nations, India’s political leaders guided their country onto the paths of stability and progress. According to one of India’s most respected scholars, S.D. Muni, the “elaborate structure of power devolution has combined with the linguistic basis of federal unity to facilitate the management of cultural diversity in India and help mitigate pulls towards separatism and disintegration”. Muni adds that both at the central and state levels, Indians are dedicated to “a consciously followed approach to preserve and promote the cultural specificities of diverse groups”, and that that “has helped such groups identify with the national mainstream”. In addition, Indians have generally strengthened their country by consciously upholding the integrity of their democratic institutions and democratic politics.
It is interesting that Nigerian leaders, particularly our northern political leaders, are fond of often pointing out that though India, like Nigeria, comprises many different nations, yet India is much more stable than Nigeria. But they never point out that Indian leaders took statesmanlike steps to structure their federation rationally, and to make their different nations reasonably happy to belong to India. The bottom-line is obvious: we can only have stability in Nigeria if we sincerely respect our different nations and make them feel respected and belonging.
