History Project

Exploring the Impact of the Scramble for Africa on

Ethnic Tensions and the Nigerian Civil War

Submitted by Supervised by

Shruti Singh Dr. Rachna Sharma

Section – C Assistant Professor of
Roll. No. – 23215 History

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law

Punjab, Patiala
2023
1|Page
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

This certificate is to declare that this project-based upon 'Exploring the Impact of the
Scramble for Africa on Ethnic Tensions and the Nigerian Civil War’ is an original work
of Shruti Singh, who is a bonafide student of the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Law,
Punjab.

SIGNATURE

Shruti Singh

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Affirmation to one's kind help is always a thing of joy. I thus find immense elation to
acknowledge every individual who has helped me in the completion of this research work.

I am obliged to the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law for giving me this valuable
opportunity to complete this project. I shall express my deep gratitude to the Vice-
Chancellor of the institution, Dr Jai Shankar Singh, for his constant inspiration and blessings.
I am delighted to take this opportunity to explore the insightful topic, ‘Exploring the Impact
of the Scramble for Africa on Ethnic Tensions and the Nigerian Civil War’. My deepest
regards and indebtedness to my teacher, Dr Rachna Sharma, for her unending guidance and
motivation, which made the completion of this paper successful in its best way possible.

I am also thankful for the constant guidance and support from project coordinators and the
library department for fulfilling the aim of this project paper.

In the end, I am thankful to my family and friends for their valuable support and suggestion
in every possible manner. I am highly obliged to everyone for their precious time, and
support are given to me.

Shruti Singh

3|Page
 PREFACE

It is a great opportunity for me to have BALLB in Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law,
Patiala. In the accomplishment of this degree, I am submitting a project report on ‘Exploring
the Impact of the Scramble for Africa on Ethnic Tensions and the Nigerian Civil War’.
Subject to the limitation of time, efforts and resources, every possible attempt has been made
to study the topic deeply. Analysis of various secondary resources such as books,
articles, websites, e-journals etc. is done to research and delve into the topic deeper so as to
answer the various research questions and reach a conclusion.

4|Page
 Table of Contents
A. Cover Page 1

B. Bonafide Certificate 2

C. Acknowledgement 3

D. Preface 4

1. INTRODUCTION 6-9
1.1 Overview of Nigerian Civil War 6
1.2 Background on Scramble for Africa 7

2. COLONIAL LEGACY AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION 10-1

2.1 Impact of Colonial Borders on Ethnic Groups 10
2.2 Ethnic Diversity and Identity Formation 11

3. POLITICAL INSTABILITY AND PRE-WAR TENSIONS 12-16

3.1 Post-Independence Political Landscape 12
3.2 Ethnic Politics and Power Dynamics 13
3.3. Economic Grievances and Resource Allocation 14

4. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 16-17

E. WORKS CITED 18

5|Page
INTRODUCTION
Overview of Nigerian Civil War
The path to Nigeria's independence in 1960 was marked by significant political and social
challenges, including ethnic tensions and regional disparities. Abubakar Tafawa Balewa served
as the country's first federal prime minister, while Nnamdi Azikiwe assumed the largely
ceremonial role of president of the Senate. These leaders oversaw a period of transition
characterized by efforts to manage Nigeria's diverse ethnic and regional identities.

One pivotal moment occurred in 1961 when the northern part of the Trust Territory of the
Cameroons joined Nigeria's Northern region, while the Southern Cameroons merged with
Cameroun to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. This shift altered Nigeria's territorial
boundaries and highlighted the complexities of managing diverse populations within the
country.1

Nigeria transitioned to a republic on October 1, 1963, with Azikiwe assuming the presidency.
However, Balewa retained significant political power as prime minister. Despite these changes,
long-standing regional tensions persisted, exacerbated by issues such as ethnic competition,
educational disparities, and economic imbalances.

The contentious census of 1962–63 further fueled ethnic rivalries, leading to the creation of
Nigeria's Mid-West region in 1963 through the division of the Western region. Despite efforts
to address grievances, Nigeria remained divided along ethnic lines, with the Yoruba controlling
the west, the Igbo dominating the east, and the Hausa-Fulani exerting influence in the north.

Political instability escalated in January 1966 when a group of army officers attempted to
overthrow the federal government following a fraudulent election in October 1965. This coup
resulted in the assassination of Balewa and two regional premiers, leading to the establishment
of a military administration under Maj. Gen. Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi. 2

Aguiyi-Ironsi's plan to centralize power and abolish regional governments sparked anti-Igbo
riots in the north, exacerbating ethnic tensions. In July 1966, northern officers staged a
countercoup, assassinating Aguiyi-Ironsi and bringing Lieut. Col. Yakubu Gowon to power.

1
Perham, Margery. "Reflections on the Nigerian civil war." International Affairs (Royal Institute of
International Affairs 1944-) (1970): 231-246.
2
Falode, Adewunmi James. "The Nigerian civil war, 1967-1970: A revolution?." African Journal of Political
Science and International Relations 5.3 (2011): 120-124.

6|Page
Intercommunal clashes and threats of secession further destabilized Nigeria, prompting Gowon
to convene a conference to address the country's constitutional future. However, ethnic
massacres in October 1966 derailed these efforts.

In January 1967, an attempt at reconciliation occurred in Aburi, Ghana, but disagreements over
the interpretation of the accord led to further deterioration of the situation. In May, the Eastern
region's assembly authorized Odumegwu Ojukwu to establish the Republic of Biafra, leading
to full-scale conflict.

The Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War, erupted in July 1967, with Biafran
troops initially gaining ground before federal forces pushed back. International mediation
efforts failed, and the conflict escalated, resulting in significant casualties and widespread
starvation.

The final collapse of Biafra occurred in 1969, culminating in Ojukwu's flight to Côte d'Ivoire
and the formal surrender of Biafran delegates in Lagos. Estimates of the death toll vary widely,
reflecting the magnitude of the human tragedy caused by the conflict, including battlefield
deaths, ethnic cleansing, and starvation.

In conclusion, Nigeria's journey to independence and subsequent civil war underscore the
complexities of managing ethnic diversity and regional disparities within a newly formed
nation. The scars of the conflict continue to shape Nigeria's socio-political landscape to this
day.3

Background on Scramble for Africa

The Scramble for Africa refers to the period of intense European colonial expansion and
competition for territorial control in Africa during the late 19th century, roughly between the
1880s and the early 1900s. This era was characterized by a rapid and aggressive colonization
of African territories by European powers, driven by economic, political, strategic, and
ideological motives.4

The main factors contributing to the Scramble for Africa were the industrial revolution in
Europe, which increased the demand for raw materials and new markets, as well as
advancements in transportation and communication technologies that made it easier for

3
Obasanjo, Olusegun. My command: an account of the Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970. East African Publishers,
1980.
4
Barnhart, Joslyn. "Status competition and territorial aggression: evidence from the scramble for
Africa." Security Studies 25.3 (2016): 385-419.

7|Page
European powers to penetrate and control distant territories. Additionally, there was a desire
for prestige and national glory among European nations, leading to intense competition for
colonial possessions.

The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 marked a significant event in the Scramble for Africa,
where European powers convened to establish guidelines for the partitioning of Africa among
themselves. The conference was convened by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and
aimed to prevent conflicts between European powers over African territories. However, no
African representatives were present at the conference, and the decisions made disregarded
African sovereignty and territorial boundaries.

During the Scramble for Africa, European powers employed various strategies to assert control
over African territories. These included military conquest, diplomatic treaties, and the
establishment of colonial administrations. Explorers, missionaries, and traders often preceded
formal colonization, providing European powers with valuable information about African
geography, resources, and potential markets.

The partitioning of Africa resulted in the creation of artificial boundaries that divided ethnic
groups, kingdoms, and cultural regions. European colonial powers imposed their systems of
governance, law, and administration, often exploiting local resources and labor to extract
wealth for their own benefit. This exploitation led to the economic underdevelopment of many
African regions and the disruption of traditional social and political structures.

The Scramble for Africa had far-reaching consequences for the continent and its people. It led
to the loss of political sovereignty and independence for many African societies, as well as the
suppression of indigenous cultures and languages. European colonization also fueled conflicts
and resistance movements against colonial rule, as African leaders and communities sought to
reclaim their autonomy and resist foreign domination.5

Moreover, the Scramble for Africa intensified rivalries between European powers, leading to
tensions and conflicts that contributed to the outbreak of World War I. The legacy of
colonialism continues to impact Africa to this day, shaping its political, economic, and social
landscape. The arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers have often resulted in ethnic
tensions, territorial disputes, and conflicts, highlighting the enduring impact of the Scramble
for Africa on the continent's history and development.

5
Boddy-Evans, Alistair. "What Caused the Scramble for Africa?." African History (2012).

8|Page
The predominant explanations on the deep roots of contemporary African development are
centered around the influence of Europeans during the colonial period, but also in the centuries
before colonization when close to 20 million slaves were exported from Africa. Yet in the
period between the ending of the slave trades and the beginning of the colonial rule, another
major event took place that, according to the African historiography, had malicious long-lasting
consequences. 6During the “Scramble for Africa,” that starts with the Berlin Conference of
1884–1885 and is completed by the turn of the twentieth century, Europeans partitioned Africa
into spheres of influence, protectorates, and colonies. The borders were designed in European
capitals at a time when Europeans had barely settled in Africa and had limited knowledge of
local conditions. Despite their arbitrariness, boundaries outlived the colonial era. As a result,
in many African countries today a significant fraction of the population belongs to ethnic
groups that are partitioned among different states.7

6
Chamberlain, Muriel Evelyn. The scramble for Africa. Routledge, 2014.
7
Michalopoulos, Stelios, and Elias Papaioannou. "The long-run effects of the scramble for Africa." American
Economic Review 106.7 (2016): 1802-1848.

9|Page
COLONIAL LEGACY AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION
Impact of Colonial Borders on Ethnic Groups
Nigeria, as we know it today, is a conflation of several ethnic nationalities that have coexisted
as one nation. A remarkable aspect of their collective history is that the parts of these
nationalities were linked at many points and over several periods of time in myths of origin,
commercial activities across borders, crafts, marriage, trade, religions, and other issues that
welded them into a unified entity. The various nationalities could yet be rightly described as
having peculiar values and orientations, idiosyncrasies and traditions, which in many instances
were diametrical and antagonistic by modus vivendi and modus operandi. But these never
mattered in so far that they were (often) politically independent of one another. In other words,
the disparate ethnies were free, sovereign, contiguous and often cooperative. Colonialism came
to alter this status quo inter alia. Colonialism had initially coalesced the disparate peoples along
two geo-political zones - the Northern Nigeria Protectorate and the Colony/Protectorate of
Southern Nigeria, with separate colonial Governors. At that stage, each geo-colonial zone had
relatively contained peoples with trado-cultural affinities; hence, prospects for ethnic bickering
were insignificant.8

Several world-changing developments such as the rise of sovereign states and an international
order in the post-westphalian sense, and as well the Industrial Revolutions and Mercantilism
have taken place, resulting in the evolution of modern industrial societies, the kind that were
then grossly absent in Africa. The European conquerors of the world had considered it their
manifest destiny to drag and mold the entire world along these modern patterns. This would
inevitably result in the regrouping of peoples and the reshaping of primitive states into modern
nation-states. Of consequence also, it had been in the plan and process of the British
Government, as a matter of their national interest and colonial convenience, to coalesce the two
colonies as one. The British Government was prejudicially aware also that the resultant nation
would be a bed of nails for strange bedfellows with the full awareness that the fundamental
differences in values and sensibilities will certainly ever pitch the people against one another.
What however mattered to Britain then was the sustenance and even the furtherance of her
unrivalled international prestige, power and colonial expediency, and not, though importantly,
the consequences of the eventual clash of sensibilities and values (and may be of civilizations)
of peoples whose immediate past generations had earlier been forcibly bundled and fettered

8
Perham, Margery. "Reflections on the Nigerian civil war." International Affairs (Royal Institute of
International Affairs 1944-) (1970): 231-246.

10 | P a g e
unto slave ships to farm European plantations in the Americas. Britain had claimed the fame
for building the greatest global empire on which the sun never sets, and may thus still wish to
experiment with building huge artificial nations many times her own size. But Britain never
needed to compound the future by merging the two geo-colonial entities at the time since each
was already bigger than most European states and were already viable as modern states.
However, Britain could afford to be careless and unsentimental to the eventual plight of the
colonial peoples, for after all, the colony itself, like many others, was to double-serve
importantly as an asset for international diplomatic and military leverage, and very importantly
as well, a business facility for the resource-depleted British home industries in the aftermath of
the second Industrial Revolution and the abolition of TransAtlantic Slave Trade. The
amalgamation was not necessarily the objective building of a workable and beneficial modern
polity to organize the locals for their development and prosperous futures in the evolving
international order.

Thus, in the foregoing, the amalgamation of these two colonies is a special assignment that
requires ruthlessness, audaciousness and atrociousness, particularly as it is bound to meet with
resistance by a good section of the locals. As such the mission would require a crazily ruthless
fellow with a pedigree for reckless disregard for decorum and scruples. Of all the British
colonial officials on field at the time, perhaps the only one with such credential and excellent
profiling was Frederick Lugard. With a background career in military and mercenary
professionalism, he had been previously hired or commissioned, most times successfully, to
secure trade routes, treaties, or territories for imperial British companies, establish British
predominance and sovereignty in colonies and other disputed territories, commandeer troops
to decisively quell colonial hot spots (even at the forfeit of entire towns to total destruction),
and to protect British interests particularly by checkmating the encroachment and aggression
of other colonial powers across much of Africa. To achieve this record, he was by no means a
gentleman, but a thoroughbred Machiavellian to whom the end only justifies the means. 9

Ethnic Diversity and Identity Formation

In recent times, the world has witnessed the unprecedented integration of peoples, customs,
traditions and businesses in global history and a supposedly boundless economic opportunities
offered by globalisation. The modus operandi and other presumptions of globalization as an
anti-alienation, post-segregation strategy were believed to be capable of narrowing or

9
Williams, Gavin. "The Nigerian Civil War'." Milton Keynes: Open University (1982).

11 | P a g e
collapsing various forms of primordial anti-progressive identities that had thrived on such
linkage factors as racial, tribal, cultural, linguistic and religious differences. Its ultimate was to
spur a new wave of economic boom and other opportunities for all peoples to partake,
irrespective of the forms of dichotomies. It is however the contrary in that some of the world’s
worst genocidal ethnicity occurred most recently despite modernization. 10

Perhaps with the exceptions of Ethiopia and Liberia, the entire continent of Africa had
originally been carved up into colonial territories by Europeans without regard to ethnic
boundaries, and regrettably, without due considerations for their idiosyncratic compatibility.
Prior to colonialism, these ethnies had more or less existed in political independence of one
another; hence, concern was insignificant for interethnic bickering.

Though mistrustful and conflictual at occasions, yet there were many other factors that created
some forms of cordial interdependence. Such included trade and commerce particularly in the
exchange of such items over which there is comparative group advantage in its production or
procurement, and which have been brought about significantly by nature (environmental and
geographical variations). Despite such interdependence anyway, ethnicity issues hardly arose.
At colonial subjugation, intergroup relations became further heightened but issues of ethnicity
were still insignificant since the colonies were governed by non- Africans who also used force
of arms to hold the colonies in place as required. Ethnic rivalry was very minimal as they willy-
nilly submitted to their foreign conquerors. Ethnic animosities, rivalries and uprisings are rather
the bye-products of the kind of inter-ethnic politics and power play that ethnics’ cohabitation
generated in the modern states.

Rather than conceptually refer it as state-formation or state-building, the modern states of

Africa evolved from the deliberately organised state-packaging or state-fabrication at the Berlin
Conference of 1884-1885. Then, European Powers were impatient to await the natural
evolution of modern states in Africa due to the prevalent international exigencies and
strategies.11

POLITICAL INSTABILITY AND PRE-WAR TENSIONS

Post-Independence Political Landscape

10
Salamone, Frank A. "Ethnicity and Nigeria since the end of the civil war." Dialectical anthropology 22.3/4
(1997): 303-333.
11
Thomas, Dapo. "The Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970): New theories, old problem, fresh crisis." International
Relations and Diplomacy 10.3 (2022): 131-139.

12 | P a g e
Nigeria’s political history is intertwined between military rule and democratic governance. The
First Republic presided over by Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, with a
ceremonial President, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, lasted from October 1960 to January 1966. The
regime was plagued by antagonistic regionalism, ethnicity, declined revenues, and bitter power
struggle, and it wobbled from one crisis to another until it was overthrown by the military.
Coincidentally, the first coup, widely touted to have been led by Major Patrick Chukwuma
Kaduna Nzeogwu, was defectively planned and terribly executed as plotters lacked full grips
with the consequences, and hence got consumed by its complexities, paving the way thereby
for an uninvolved officer, General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, to become the first military Head of
State. However, the coup had significantly compounded the incidence of ethnicity in Nigeria.
This inevitably is because both Nzeogwu and Aguiyi-Ironsi were of Igbo extraction, and hence,
the coup (dubbed by cynics as “Igbo coup”) and the policies of the eventual government were
undoubtedly interpreted as Igbo agenda to achieve political ascendancy in Nigeria. Of course,
it could be conjectured that Ironsi had tactically goofed, covertly or overtly, by decreeing the
abolition of the Federal system on 24th May, 1966 (a previous strategic provision to stymie
ethnic rivalry), for an acutely unitary system, and secondly by disparately promoting a number
of Igbo military officers ahead of others. Ironsi’s strategic miscalculations sent jitters down the
spines of other ethnic groups and united them against his government.

A counter coup was hurriedly organised and executed in July 1966, leading to the emergence
of Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, a self-acclaimed protector of Nigeria’s minorities, from the North
as the new Head of State. Quite unfortunately the earlier coup had generated serious ethnic
bitterness which led to the butchery of Igbos dwelling in the North. The ensuing bad blood led
to the Biafran secession and a civil war to reunite the country.

Ethnic Politics and Power Dynamics

Nation-building, includes the deliberate creation of national paraphernalia and symbols of unity
such as national flag, national anthem, national day and national investments/holdings, etc. At
a deeper level, national identity needed to be deliberately constructed by molding different
groups into a nation, especially since colonialism had used divide and rule tactics to maintain
its domination.

Nation-building involves the intricate inclusion of all groups, towards fostering social cohesion
and harmony as against the exclusivity and rancorous nature of ethnicity. The opening phrase
of the first Nigerian national anthem, ‘Nigeria, we hail thee, our own dear native land, though

13 | P a g e
tribes and tongues may differ, in brotherhood we stand’, is a pointer to this. The initial effort at
nation-building in Nigeria thus aimed at forging a brotherhood, vis-à-vis, a nationhood of the
diverse ethnies, organised in unity for a common purpose within the state. In other words, social
harmony is a critical ingredient of nation-building. However, the attainment of social harmony
may of essence be antithetical to the adversarial nature of inter-ethnic politics in post-colonial
states where every ethnic group is most tendentiously hostile to nonmembers.

That Nigeria is composed of many different ethnic groupings should have been of tremendous
blessings and strength towards nation-building and the speedy development of the nation.
Barring intrigues and political play, its multi-ethnic composition ought to bequeath the country,
firstly, with a syncretic array of rich cultures and etiquettes for a well-mannered national
society; secondly, a sea of progressive political ideas and thoughts that could, and ought to fast-
track national development; and lastly, an inexhaustible manpower base to actualize its
economic potentials and development. However and on the contrary, this same factor that ought
to strengthen Nigeria has actually posed the greatest challenge to nation building. Ethnic strife
has plagued Nigeria from political independence. Nigeria kickstarted as a Federation of three
regions with a weak center at colonial independence in 1960, that is, the Northern, Western and
Eastern Regions, each of which was strong enough, both in land mass and population, to be an
independent nation. 12

Politics at the national level was deeply fragmented along regional and ethnic fault lines,
bogging down thereby any national process to move the nation forward. Fundamental
differences in values had made leading ethnic groups to be parochial in developmental pursuits,
and this at the expense of the nation at large. But earlier than the institution of Regionalism and
even political independence in Nigeria had the minority ethnic groups or nationalities strongly
felt that the Federal structure of governance was inimical to their interest, especially as it did
not provide their people with maximum opportunity for individual or collective development.
This informed the setting up of the Henry Willink’s Commission on September 26, 1957 to
inquire into the fears of the minorities with a view to allaying the minorities’ apprehension.
The Willink Commission was of the opinion that the fears expressed by the minorities were
indeed genuine, but did not believe that the fears could be removed by mere creation of more
states. For example, the Edos in Western Nigeria, the Tivs in the Middle Belt of Northern
Region and the Calabar, Ogoja and Rivers peoples of the Eastern region had earlier agitated

12
Baxter, Peter. "Biafra: The Nigerian Civil War 1967-1970." (2015): 1-72.

14 | P a g e
for the creation of more states. But the parties in power in the various regions, with the
exception of the Action Group (AG) in the West had continually opposed the creation of more
states. Willink’s Commission emphasized that the states would not be viable and that new
reigns would create new minority problems.

Economic Grievances and Resource Allocation

Ethnicity as a relational product is quintessentially adversarial. Two reasons are responsible.

The first, millions of citizens found themselves, almost overnight, in the new condition being
labelled or viewed as minority. However, the tag ‘minority’ denotes the presence of some sorts
of critical competitions in which the former is delicately pitched against a majority other with
a leverage of number among other factors. Multi-ethnic states are consequently in a flux of
nagging competitions. This is quite particular to African states where there is heavy dependance
on public resources for virtually every form of sustenance, more so that the private sector is
less developed.

A major blunder committed by early postindependence leaders in their state-building effort is

that the state is paternalistically conceived. The state became an omniprovider of an
overwhelming plethora of services, many of which could have been efficiently provided by the
private sector. Access to the state’s (finite) resource base is thus crucial to the competing
groups. This explains why the attempt to privatize certain public utilities, infrastructures and
services have met with stiff public resistance, whereas most African states are already
overwhelmed and incapable of further services. Ethnicity could be the basis for the unequal
treatment of people and it may be the cause of ethnocentrism and prejudices against members
of other ethnic groups. The second, which derives from the first, is a function of several factors.
The fact that the (African) state is in a constant scenario of political competitions is an
indication of the economic fact that the resources available for allocation is also never surplus.
It is indeed the scarcity of resources that inevitably necessitates, if not aggravates, the politics
of (its) allocation.13

The stakes of politics are too high. Politics extends beyond mere governmental organisation
and operation of the state and its institutions. Politics is critical and determinative of people’s
fate or fortune in life. Without an iota of doubt, it’s a functional determination of who prospers
or perishes, who lives or dies, who is favoured or marginalized and who is famed or defamed.

13
Kirk-Greene, Anthony Hamilton Millard. The genesis of the Nigerian civil war and the theory of fear.
Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 1975.

15 | P a g e
Politics could be used to engender development and underdevelopment, depending on who is
at the winning end of power play. The politics of allocation essentially is about competing to
get some scarce benefits from government. Such include health, wealth, scholarships and
education, public utilities, infrastructural facilities, loans and grants, livelihoods, fame, respect,
land, resource control, security, contracts, import license, influence, skills, and etc. How much
that one could get is a critical function of where one belongs in the endgame of politics.

The critical reason why people or groups struggle for governmental power is because it is
essentially at the decision end of politics of allocation. Therefore, intergroup competitions for
the authoritative allocation of value in multiethnic states are inevitable and vicious. They are
usually the root cause of interethnic civil uprisings.14

At Independence when Nigeria’s economy relied solely on agricultural exports, the revenue
sharing formula based on the principle of derivation was adopted. By this principle, federal
revenues were distributed to the federating units based on the total or some proportion of certain
taxes assumed to have been paid by the citizens of the units. Two of Nigeria’s three units then,
the Western and Northern Regions (also with two dominant ethnic stocks – Yoruba and Hausa-
Fulani) tremendously got enriched under this principle through their exportation of cocoa and
groundnuts (then in very high demand in the international market) and other cash crops. 15 The
Eastern Region was then less endowed and thus profited less comparatively.

Shortly after, oil was discovered in stupendous commercial quantity in the Eastern Region. The
instreaming petrodollars soon and far outstripped total revenues from agroexports prompting
thereby the successful agitation by the same two chagrined regions for Nigeria to adopt a new
revenue sharing formula that is either based on the principle of need or the principle of even
development/national interest.

CONCLUSION
The Nigerian Civil War stands as a stark reminder of the complex interplay of historical,
political, and social factors that can lead to conflict within multi-ethnic nations. Through this
research project, we have examined the role of the Scramble for Africa as a contributing factor

14
Akresh, Richard, et al. "War and stature: Growing up during the Nigerian civil war." American Economic
Review 102.3 (2012): 273-277.
15
Stremlau, John J. The international politics of the Nigerian civil war, 1967-1970. Princeton University Press,
2015.

16 | P a g e
to the Nigerian Civil War, shedding light on the lasting repercussions of colonialism on African
societies.

The Scramble for Africa, driven by European colonial powers' quest for territorial control and
economic exploitation, left a deep imprint on Nigeria and other African nations. The arbitrary
drawing of colonial boundaries, imposition of foreign governance structures, and exploitation
of natural resources exacerbated ethnic tensions and created divisions that persist to this day.
In the case of Nigeria, the amalgamation of diverse ethnic groups into a single nation-state
without due consideration for their identities, aspirations, and grievances laid the groundwork
for future conflict.

The Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War, was fueled by a combination of ethnic
rivalries, political instability, economic disparities, and the desire for self-determination. The
secessionist movement in the southeastern region, led by the Igbo people, sought to break away
from Nigeria in response to perceived marginalization and oppression by the central
government dominated by other ethnic groups. The conflict resulted in immense suffering, loss
of life, and humanitarian crisis, underscoring the urgent need to address the root causes of
ethnic strife and build a more inclusive and equitable society.

Drawing lessons from other multi-ethnic nations, such as India, offers valuable insights into
strategies for managing ethnic diversity and reducing intercommunal conflict. India's federal
system, which grants different states autonomy and power to govern their affairs, provides a
model for accommodating the diverse identities and aspirations within a unified framework.
By devolving power to regional governments and allowing for local governance structures that
reflect the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity of the population, India has managed to
mitigate tensions and foster a sense of belonging among its diverse communities.

In the context of African nations, adopting a similar approach of decentralization and

devolution of power could help address the underlying grievances that fuel ethnic conflicts.
Providing different ethnic groups with space to exercise self-governance and manage their own
affairs could help build trust, promote cooperation, and prevent the centralization of power in
the hands of a dominant ethnic group. Furthermore, empowering local communities to
participate in decision-making processes and promoting inclusive policies that respect cultural
diversity can help foster social cohesion and national unity.

However, it is essential to recognize that the challenges facing African nations are complex and
multifaceted, requiring comprehensive and context-specific solutions. While decentralization

17 | P a g e
and regional autonomy may offer a pathway towards peace and stability, they must be
accompanied by efforts to promote dialogue, reconciliation, and inclusive development.
Addressing issues of socio-economic inequality, political marginalization, and historical
injustice is crucial for building a society where all citizens, regardless of their ethnic
background, can thrive and contribute to the nation's progress.

In conclusion, the Nigerian Civil War serves as a poignant reminder of the destructive
consequences of ethnic strife and the urgent need for inclusive and equitable governance in
multi-ethnic nations. By learning from the lessons of history and drawing inspiration from
successful models of nation-building, African nations can chart a path towards peace,
prosperity, and unity. Embracing diversity as a source of strength rather than division, and
empowering all citizens to participate in shaping their collective future, holds the key to
realizing the full potential of Africa's rich tapestry of cultures and identities.

18 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Perham, Margery. "Reflections on the Nigerian civil war." International Affairs (Royal
Institute of International Affairs 1944-) (1970): 231-246.
 Falode, Adewunmi James. "The Nigerian civil war, 1967-1970: A revolution?." African
Journal of Political Science and International Relations 5.3 (2011): 120-124.
 Obasanjo, Olusegun. My command: an account of the Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970.
East African Publishers, 1980.
 Barnhart, Joslyn. "Status competition and territorial aggression: evidence from the
scramble for Africa." Security Studies 25.3 (2016): 385-419.
 Boddy-Evans, Alistair. "What Caused the Scramble for Africa?." African
History (2012).
 Chamberlain, Muriel Evelyn. The scramble for Africa. Routledge, 2014.
 Michalopoulos, Stelios, and Elias Papaioannou. "The long-run effects of the scramble
for Africa." American Economic Review 106.7 (2016): 1802-1848.
 Perham, Margery. "Reflections on the Nigerian civil war." International Affairs (Royal
Institute of International Affairs 1944-) (1970): 231-246.
 Williams, Gavin. "The Nigerian Civil War'." Milton Keynes: Open University (1982).
 Salamone, Frank A. "Ethnicity and Nigeria since the end of the civil war." Dialectical
anthropology 22.3/4 (1997): 303-333.
 Thomas, Dapo. "The Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970): New theories, old problem, fresh
crisis." International Relations and Diplomacy 10.3 (2022): 131-139.
 Baxter, Peter. "Biafra: The Nigerian Civil War 1967-1970." (2015): 1-72.
 Kirk-Greene, Anthony Hamilton Millard. The genesis of the Nigerian civil war and the
theory of fear. Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 1975.
 Akresh, Richard, et al. "War and stature: Growing up during the Nigerian civil
war." American Economic Review 102.3 (2012): 273-277.
 Stremlau, John J. The international politics of the Nigerian civil war, 1967-1970.
Princeton University Press, 2015.

19 | P a g e