-
This contrast raises a critical question about direction rather than competence
-
While Nigeria struggles to manage inequality, India increasingly governs it with efficiency
-
The challenge for both democracies lies in whether state capacity will be used to resolve inequality and expand inclusion, or to stabilise exclusion under the guise of order and national unity
India, the world’s largest democracy by population, and Nigeria, projected to become the world’s second-largest democracy by 2050, occupy a pivotal place in the global political and economic order. Demographic projections underscore their growing significance. India’s population is expected to reach about 1.67 billion by 2050 before gradually declining to 1.09 billion by 2100, reported ummid.com.
Nigeria, meanwhile, is projected to cross 400 million by mid-century and rise to nearly 800 million by 2100, overtaking the United States in population size.
Beyond demographics, both countries share aspirations of sustained economic growth and global influence. Their geopolitical positions, postcolonial histories, and social diversity create opportunities for mutual learning
Yet comparisons between India and African societies, including Nigeria, have often been avoided in Indian public discourse. This reluctance stems less from analytical weakness and more from discomfort, shaped by colonial-era hierarchies and nationalist narratives that portray India as fundamentally distinct from postcolonial challenges associated with Africa.
A structural comparison, however, is neither cultural nor racial. It seeks to examine how large postcolonial states manage inequality, legitimacy, and dissent amid mass poverty and elite concentration of wealth. Viewed through this lens, parallels between India and Nigeria become both valid and instructive.
Nigeria’s political economy has long been constrained by dependence on oil revenues, extreme inequality, weak welfare mechanisms, and fragmented public services. In this environment, religion has emerged as a powerful source of social organisation and political legitimacy. Faith-based identities often provide dignity and belonging where the state struggles to ensure material security, and political elites have periodically instrumentalised these identities to deflect attention from structural economic failures.
India exhibits a different, more institutionalised dynamic. Majoritarian nationalism is deeply embedded within the state apparatus, functioning as a unifying force in a highly unequal society. Economic grievances such as unemployment, agrarian distress, and informal labour insecurity are frequently reframed as cultural or civilisational concerns. Minority groups, dissenting voices, and activists are portrayed as obstacles to national progress, while citizenship itself becomes increasingly conditional.
At a structural level, both societies show signs of moralising poverty, weakening redistribution, and narrowing space for dissent. The key difference lies in state capacity. Nigeria’s governance failures are often visible and disorganised. India, by contrast, possesses strong bureaucratic systems, digital infrastructure, and legal frameworks that allow control to be exercised in procedural and institutional ways.
