In his 1957 book The Soldier and the State, Samuel P. Huntington introduced the concept of objective civilian control over the military. His work became a key reference in military sociology and strategic studies. In it, he developed a theory on the relationship between the military and the state.
One of the central ideas in his analysis is that of objective control. According to Huntington, this model represents the optimal way to manage civil–military relations in a democratic state. Unlike what he calls subjective control, Huntington argues that objective control effectively balances civilian authority and military expertise.
This article will examine the concept of objective control, its principles, advantages, and challenges within the framework of democratic governance.
Theoretical context: civilian versus military
The idea of separating civilian and military spheres dates back to antiquity. However, Huntington reformulated it within the modern context of liberal democracies. The central question he sought to answer was this: How can a democracy preserve military competence while ensuring civilian control over the armed forces?
Huntington criticized earlier approaches in which civilian authorities sought to directly limit or subordinate military power by imposing strict oversight on military decisions and actions. Such interference, he argued, often led to inefficiency and reduced operational effectiveness. To solve this problem, Huntington proposed a form of control based on a delicate balance—objective control.
What is objective control according to Huntington?
Objective control is based on one fundamental idea: allowing the military to exercise its professional expertise while ensuring obedience to civilian authority. Unlike subjective control—which relies on co-optation, politicization, or the integration of military elites into civilian political structures—objective control advocates strict professional autonomy for the armed forces.
This concept rests on two key principles:
Military specialization
Huntington argued that the armed forces should be composed of professionals trained specifically in defense matters. Military expertise, he wrote, is a unique domain not shared by civilian authorities, who lack the technical training to make such judgments.
Non-interference of civilians in internal military affairs
For Huntington, the best way for civilians to control the military is not through daily interference but by granting them the autonomy necessary to fulfill their mission. Civilian leaders define strategic goals, while the military determines how best to achieve them.
Subjective vs. objective control in Huntington’s theory
Subjective control, according to Huntington, is one possible model of civil–military relations. It relies on reducing military autonomy and seeks to merge the military sphere with the civilian political one. In modern democracies, this often manifests as the politicization of the armed forces, where senior officers are co-opted by political leaders to serve partisan interests. Huntington saw this as a threat—not only to democratic stability but also to the effectiveness of the military itself. When the army becomes politicized or reduced to an extension of political power struggles, it loses both neutrality and competence.
By contrast, objective control maintains a clear separation between the two spheres. By delegating to the military the technical management of force, while preserving clear political subordination, the state maintains both its authority over strategic decisions and the operational effectiveness of its forces.
Advantages of objective control
Autonomy and professional expertise
One major advantage of objective control is that it preserves military competence. Allowing professionals to handle operational matters ensures the efficient and expert execution of strategic decisions.
Prevention of military politicization
Objective control prevents the military from becoming a political actor, which is essential to democratic stability. A politically neutral, professional army is less likely to engage in political intrigue or coups.
Clear subordination to civilian authority
By assigning the military technical control over its own functions while civilians set political goals, the democratic state maintains strategic oversight of the armed forces. This subordination is vital to uphold the primacy of civilian authority.
Limits and criticisms of Huntington’s objective control
Despite its advantages, the concept of objective control has faced criticism. Some argue that this model can grant the military excessive autonomy, allowing it to gain disproportionate influence within the state. Others view the model as overly rigid, suggesting that civil–military relations require more flexible adjustments depending on political contexts and security threats.
Another challenge lies in the potential gap between civilians and the military, leading to a loss of mutual understanding. If the military becomes too isolated in its professional sphere, it may develop a culture disconnected from political realities and, ultimately, from national strategy itself.
Huntington’s concept of objective control remains a cornerstone of civil–military relations theory. By delegating professional competence to the military while maintaining clear civilian control over strategic decisions, Huntington offered a pragmatic solution to the tension between military autonomy and civilian authority. However, this model requires ongoing attention to avoid the risks that come with an excessive separation between war and politics.
Ogun, god of war and iron, holds a major place in traditional African religions, particularly among the Yoruba and the Fon. Worshiped across several regions of West Africa and throughout the diaspora, he embodies strength, warrior power, and the technology associated with metallurgy. His attributes include iron tools, weapons, and animals that symbolize strength and determination. Ogun represents war in its most brutal and destructive form. He is also a god of justice, hunting, and protection. His ancient and rich cult reflects the complexities of both war and human society.
Ogun plays a key role in African religions, especially among the Yoruba and the Fon. His name echoes through the stories of peoples who revere him for his power and his essential role in metallurgy and warfare. This god embodies not only the violence of conflict but also justice, protection, and technological progress.
Ogun, god of war in West Africa
Ogun is worshiped in West Africa, particularly in Nigeria, Benin, and Togo. He represents raw strength and the ability to dominate the environment through iron technology. The Yoruba and the Fon—renowned blacksmiths and warriors—have worshiped him since ancient times. They integrated his cult into daily life and wartime rituals.
In precolonial times, blacksmiths dedicated their work to Ogun, seeing him as the very spirit of steel. They offered animal sacrifices before using their iron tools. Without his power, no weapon could be properly forged. Ogun also ruled over warfare, as he provided the raw material for all weapons: iron.
With the transatlantic slave trade, Ogun’s cult spread to the Americas, particularly Cuba, Brazil, and Haiti. There, it took on new forms within Haitian Vodou and Brazilian Candomblé. In Haiti, Ogun—known as Ogou—became a central figure in the struggle for freedom among enslaved people. His followers prayed to him before battles or important actions, seeking his protection and blessing. Even today, his cult remains strong in the African diaspora, representing the fight for survival, justice, and transformation.
Ogun, master of iron and the forge
Ogun is the master of iron and the forge. His main attributes include all metal tools and weapons. A hammer, axe, sword, and spear are often used to represent him. The machete embodies his ability to open new paths, to clear and transform the world.
Animals are also associated with Ogun : the dog and the boar symbolize loyalty, ferocity, and raw power. The boar represents tenacity and rage—the qualities Ogun displays in battle. The dog represents faithfulness and protection. His devotees seek these traits both in war and daily life.
Ogun also wears chains and shackles, symbols of capture and domination in warfare, but also of justice, as he embodies law and the punishment of wrongdoers. His followers often sacrifice dogs, roosters, or other animals in his honor. It is common to see iron tools placed on his altars.
Iron, the material of his attributes, also represents technological progress. Through his link to the forge, Ogun embodies not only destruction but also creation. He allows humans to craft tools that change the world.
Ogun, brutal and destructive god
Ogun embodies the brutal, destructive, and unstoppable aspect of war. He is the god who charges forward with iron weapons, mercilessly breaking enemy lines. Warriors invoke Ogun before battle, hoping to receive his blessing and invincible strength. Iron—both tool and weapon—gives Ogun his dominion over war.
The peoples of West Africa, especially the Yoruba and the Fon, long viewed war as essential to survival. Conflicts over land or resources were frequent, and Ogun stood at the heart of these struggles. Every battle required reliable tools, which only blacksmiths blessed by Ogun could create. His role extended beyond craftsmanship—he symbolized the fighting spirit and endurance needed to prevail.
In the diaspora, especially in Haiti, Ogun gained new meaning during revolutions against colonial powers. During the Haitian War of Independence, enslaved people and revolutionary leaders invoked Ogun before combat, praying for his fighting spirit to guide them to victory. This connection with war became so strong that many now view Ogun as a patron of revolutions and liberation struggles.
Ogun also represents the moral dimension of war. Though associated with violence and destruction, he punishes traitors and rewards those who fight for just causes. His wars are never meaningless—they aim to restore order or protect the vulnerable. His followers believe he enforces the laws of war and ensures justice is served once the fighting ends.
God of iron
Ogun is not only a god of war; he is also a deity of justice, hunting, roads, and technology. As the god of iron, he rules over all professions involving this metal—blacksmiths, hunters, and builders alike. Every iron tool, whether for war or agriculture, depends on Ogun’s power.
Protector of travelers
His role as protector of roads and pathways is equally important. Travelers offer sacrifices to Ogun before setting out to ensure his protection. Iron, the material of tools and weapons, also symbolizes the creation of infrastructure connecting communities. In this sense, Ogun is a god of progress and civilization. He embodies the transformation of raw nature into an ordered human world.
Justice
Justice is another central facet of his identity. As a war god, he punishes those who break the rules or betray their comrades. He imposes harsh—often deadly—penalties but also rewards heroes and virtuous people. Those seeking justice or vengeance invoke Ogun, hoping the god will intervene to restore balance.
Protector of hunters
In regions where his cult is strong, particularly Nigeria and Benin, Ogun protects hunters. They rely on his blessings to succeed in their expeditions. Hunting, though seemingly peaceful, is also a form of war against nature. Ogun, master of weapons and tools, allows humans to dominate natural forces in order to survive.
Ogun also plays an important role in religious ceremonies. As an ancestral deity, he receives regular sacrifices and presides over rituals linked to war, hunting, justice, and travel. These rituals—often accompanied by dance and song—celebrate his strength and his ability to transform human life through technology and the controlled use of violence to maintain order.
Ogun, god of war, iron, and justice, embodies a brutal yet necessary force within the societies that worshiped him. From antiquity to the present day, his cult has spread across West Africa and the African diaspora. As a symbol of war and technological progress, Ogun has shaped the history of his peoples—both on the battlefield and in the forge. His many roles make him a complex deity: both destroyer and creator, guarantor of order and chaos, and above all, protector of the paths his followers walk through the ages.
Many cultures have their own god of war, but this function is often tied to other roles. This shows us how each culture perceives war. Here’s an overview of the main war gods from different cultures around the world. The list is, of course, not exhaustive.
Doyen – Mars Wounded by Diomedes – 1781
Western Europe : Tension between brutality and intelligence
Mars , the Roman god of war, was more than just a god of violence and conflict. His role in society was significant, both military, agricultural, and civic. Mars embodied the Roman ideal of discipline, strength, and justice. As the protector of soldiers and guarantor of borders, he played a vital role in Roman public life. His function also extended to agriculture and the founding of colonies, illustrating the importance of warfare to the preservation and expansion of the Roman Empire. Read more.
Ares, the Greek god of war, is an emblematic figure of ancient mythology. Worshipped mainly in Greece, he embodies the violence and brutality of conflicts. His attributes include weapons and animals symbolizing strength and aggressiveness. Ares represents the destructive and chaotic aspect of war. He is opposed to Athena, who symbolizes strategy and wisdom. He is associated with bloody and disorganized battle. Read our full article.
Athena , goddess of war and wisdom, is a central figure in the Greek pantheon. Representing strategic intelligence in conflict, she was worshipped in several city-states, including Athens. Her attributes include the aegis, spear, and owl. Unlike Ares, who symbolizes brute violence, Athena embodies a thoughtful and tactical approach to warfare. In addition to her martial skills, she patronized the arts, justice, and crafts, reflecting her versatile role in Greek mythology. Read the article.
TEUTATES, GALLIC god of war AND fertility
Teutates was one of the most revered gods of ancient Gaul. His name means “the god of the tribe” or “the protector of the people.” A versatile deity, he represented both war and fertility, two areas essential for the survival and prosperity of the tribes.
As a god of war, Teutates was often associated with Mars, the Roman god of war. This reflects an adaptation of Gallic beliefs in the face of Roman influence. Rituals dedicated to this god were sometimes marked by human sacrifices, testifying to the fervor and gravity of these practices. Victims were often drowned, a form of sacrifice that aimed to appease this demanding deity and gain his support.
Teutates was not only a warrior god. As a fertility deity, he also watched over the crops and prosperity of the people. His protection thus extended well beyond the battlefield, symbolizing the strength and unity of the Gallic tribes. Each tribe had its own cult dedicated to Teutates, which reinforced the collective identity and sense of belonging.
The cult of Teutates gradually disappeared with the Romanization of Gaul, but it remains today a powerful symbol of Celtic culture.
Camulos, Celtic god of war
Camulos , the Celtic god of war, was worshipped in ancient Gaul and Britain for his military power and protective role. His cult spread far beyond the Celtic lands, becoming part of various regions of the Roman Empire. This spread is evidence of Camulos’ importance to warrior populations.
Like Mars, Camulos was a symbol of military strength and protection. The Romans often depicted him with similar attributes: an imposing helmet, a sword, or a shield, which referred to his martial nature.
Camulos was not only a god of war. He also embodied the sovereignty and legitimacy of the chiefs, who invoked his name to reinforce their authority. The rituals in his honor were aimed at ensuring victory but also at guaranteeing the prosperity of the tribes. This aspect proved crucial in societies where war and fertility were closely linked.
Despite the progressive Romanization of Celtic territories, the figure of Camulos has managed to survive. It has become a bridge between local traditions and Roman influences. Its image, combining warrior strength and sacred power, remains today a testimony to the beliefs and values that animated the Celtic peoples in search of protection and prosperity.
Sucellos, war, fertility and forge
Sucellos was a complex Celtic deity, worshipped throughout Gaul. While he was often associated with fertility and blacksmithing, his role extended far beyond these domains. He embodied the duality of creative and destructive power. His powerful image made him a deity honored by blacksmiths and warriors alike.
One of the most characteristic symbols of Sucellos is the mace he carries. This object, both tool and weapon, symbolizes brute force but also the ability to shape and transform. As god of the forge, Sucellos was the patron saint of artisans. They shaped weapons and tools, essential elements for daily life and wars. His association with the forge directly links him to the earth and natural resources, sources of fertility and wealth for the Celtic peoples.
But Sucellos was not only a god of life and creation. His mace, a symbol of destruction, also gave him a warrior role. He was invoked to protect communities during conflicts and to ensure the victory of tribes in battle. His ability to destroy as well as create made him a fearsome figure, capable of maintaining the balance between peace and war. This dual nature, both nurturing and destructive, reflects the Celtic conception of the universe, where opposing forces coexist and complement each other.
contemporary france
Asterix and Obelix are the main icons of French warrior culture. Imagined by the creator gods Goscinny and Uderzo, they have become warrior symbols. They represent the resistance and bravery of the French. Their fighting spirit and perseverance make them models for strategists and soldiers.
Asterix, a clever little warrior, embodies tactical intelligence. He stands out for his ingenuity. His strength lies in his ability to thwart enemy plans. Asterix proves that a quick mind can beat the greatest armies. His cunning makes him a formidable strategist.
Obelix, at his side, is brute force. His imposing stature and power make him formidable. Thanks to the magic potion, he has unmatched strength. Obelix is the image of French solidity and resistance. He symbolizes robustness in the face of adversity.
Together, they form an invincible duo. Their complicity illustrates solidarity in the fight. Asterix and Obelix represent the unity needed to win. Their only fear? That the sky will fall on their heads.
Norse mythology – gods associated with war
Thor is the god of thunder, lightning, and protection in Norse mythology, but he also plays an important role as a warrior god. Although Odin and Týr are more specifically associated with war, Thor is often invoked by warriors for his unmatched strength and destructive power. He fights giants, the enemies of the gods, and protects humanity with his famous hammer, Mjölnir . He represents bravery, raw power, and the defense of order against chaos.
Odin (Norse mythology). Although he is a god of wisdom, Odin is also often invoked by Viking warriors to guide them in battle.
Týr, god of war, courage, honor and justice.
Týr, the god of war in Norse mythology, embodies courage, honor, and justice. Unlike other warrior deities, Týr symbolizes war as an act of justice, where honor and loyalty prevail. The Vikings revered him for his bravery and righteousness in battle.
Týr does not fight for violence, but for justice and fairness. His role therefore goes beyond mere warlike confrontation. He represents war as a means of restoring order and protecting fundamental values. His courage inspires those who seek to defend the truth.
The Sacrifice of Tyr
Týr is best known for his heroic act of sacrifice. According to Norse mythology, Fenrir, a gigantic and dangerous wolf, was destined to cause great destruction. The gods, concerned about his power, decided to chain him up.
Fenrir, wary, refused to be bound unless one of the gods proved his good faith by putting his hand in his mouth as a token of trust. Knowing the danger, Týr accepted this sacrifice. When the gods managed to bind Fenrir with an unbreakable magic chain, the wolf, enraged, tore off Týr’s hand.
This heroic act symbolizes Týr’s courage and honor. He was willing to lose his hand to protect others, showing his deep sense of duty and justice. This gesture reflects Týr’s nature, ready to do anything to protect others and ensure cosmic balance. This story also reflects the theme of sacrifice necessary to maintain order in the face of chaos.
Týr remains a central figure in Norse mythology, where his strength, honor, and sacrifice make him a role model for warriors. Týr also symbolizes fighting with rig
Ogun , god of war and iron, is a major deity in traditional African religions. Revered in West Africa and the diaspora, he embodies brute force, power, and the ingenuity of metallurgy. Ogun is distinguished by his mastery of iron, which he transforms into weapons and tools. The latter are symbols of progress, but also of destruction.
Ogun’s attributes include iron tools and weapons, representing his technical mastery. Animals, such as the dog and the leopard, are often associated with his worship to illustrate his strength and determination. In rituals, followers pray to him for victory, protection, and justice. Despite his association with war and violence, Ogun is not only a destroyer. He is also the guardian of hunters and blacksmiths, ensuring the balance between creation and destruction.
Ogun is also revered as a god of justice, punishing injustice and protecting the oppressed. His role in traditional African societies therefore goes beyond mere warlike violence. He embodies order, protection and law. Ogun embodies the duality of war: both destroyer and protector, ensuring order in chaos. Read our article.
Gu , the god of war, has been venerated in the Voodoo cultures of Benin and Togo for centuries. He is closely linked to the forge and weapons. He plays a protective role for warriors. His attributes, such as iron, hammer and anvil, symbolize his power over metals and his ability to forge the tools of war. He embodies the strategic and creative aspect of conflict, while having other attributions in protection and metalworking. Read more.
Sekhmet (Ancient Egypt) is a goddess of war, destruction, and healing in Egyptian mythology. She appears in the form of a lioness, symbolizing her ferocity in battle. According to myths, Ra, the sun god, sent her to punish humanity, and she nearly exterminated humanity in her fury. However, she is also a healer, able to cure diseases, making her a complex deity, combining war and healing. Read the full article.
hteousness and justice, an ideal that the Vikings sought to embody on the battlefield.
Asia , some gods of war
India, INDRA, king of gods and god of war
Indra, king of the gods in Hinduism, embodies war, storms and the sky. He reigns over the deities and imposes his authority on the universe. Ancient Vedic texts, such as the Rig Veda, recount his exploits as defender of the heavens. Indra stands as the shield of cosmic order.
He relentlessly fights the forces of evil, especially demons, whom he defeats with his formidable weapon, lightning. He is famous for having defeated Vritra, a serpent-demon who held back the waters of the world. Thanks to this victory, Indra freed the rivers, thus ensuring the survival of living beings.
The storms he controls symbolize his power. Indra can indeed make rain fall and nourish the lands. His role is essential to maintain the balance between heaven and earth.
Beyond war, Indra also protects humans. He thus grants his favors to those who honor him. Warriors and kings, in particular, paid him homage to obtain his blessing. Through his courage and strength, Indra establishes himself as the champion of good, thus guaranteeing the stability of the universe in the face of chaos.
India, Kartikeya, celestial commander
Kartikeya, the Hindu god of war, commands the celestial armies. He embodies victory, youth and courage. This son of Shiva and Parvati is a formidable warrior, revered for his strength and bravery.
He leads the gods into battle against the forces of evil. His weapons, often represented by a spear and a peacock, symbolize his power and control. Kartikeya defends good against the demons, thus ensuring the victory of the divine forces.
Kartikeya is not only a warrior. He also inspires youth and vitality. Young men, in particular, revere him as a model of courage and discipline. His eternal youth makes him close to the faithful, who seek his protection and guidance in difficult times.
His role extends beyond the battlefield. Kartikeya is also the guarantor of justice and order in the celestial world. He ensures that balance is maintained between the forces of good and evil.
Thus, Kartikeya embodies both warrior strength and life energy. Through his victories and fighting spirit, he remains a model of courage and endurance for those who seek victory and justice.
Japan: Hachiman, god of war
Hachiman, one of the most important deities in the Shinto pantheon, is the god of war in Japan and the protector of samurai warriors. His veneration dates back to the time when the samurai dominated the warrior class, representing courage, strength, and honor. Hachiman is also considered the spiritual guardian of Japan, responsible for protecting the archipelago from external threats and ensuring the country’s prosperity.
This god is often identified with Emperor Ōjin, with whom he sometimes shares the same identity. His cult quickly spread throughout Japan. More than 30,000 shrines, called Hachimangu, were dedicated to him. He thus became one of the most popular Shinto deities. Samurai paid homage to him before each battle. They hoped to obtain his blessing for victory and protection.
Hachiman does not only embody war. He also plays a role in fertility and the protection of crops. This reinforces his place in Japanese society. A complex deity, he symbolizes both war and peace.
PERSIA, AResha, God of victory and justice
Aresha , the god of victory and justice in Zoroastrianism, symbolizes balance in the midst of conflict. He also embodies the force that triumphs over chaos and restores order. The Persians revered Aresha for his power to ensure divine justice in a world plagued by disunity.
Aresha is not only a celestial warrior. He also represents moral triumph. The faithful venerate him for his principles and his ability to maintain a just cosmic order. He is the protector of souls who fight for the truth.
As the deity of victory, Aresha ensures that justice always prevails over deception and violence. Her presence is a reminder that justice and balance are the keys to overcoming chaos. Through her role, she represents moral strength and righteousness in the midst of conflict.
Chi You , an ancient warlord and god of war in Chinese folklore, embodies brute force and military strategy. He is famous for leading numerous rebellions and for his epic battles against the imperial forces. Chi You symbolizes the power and indomitable spirit of warriors.
With his martial skills and supernatural powers, Chi You was a feared and respected opponent. But beyond battles, he also embodied rebellion against oppression. For many Chinese, Chi You thus represents resistance and the quest for justice against the powers that be. His courage inspires those who defend their freedom.
The Battle of Zhuolu
He fought the Yellow Emperor, a legendary figure of ancient China, in the famous Battle of Zhuolu. This fight has remained engraved in history as one of the greatest mythological clashes.
Although defeated, Chi You was deified and revered as the god of war. He remains a prominent figure in Chinese folklore, illustrating the importance of courage, strength, and resilience in the face of adversity. Through him, the story of China’s great warriors continues to live on and inspire.
According to legend, Chi You, endowed with supernatural powers and a formidable army, had the upper hand at the beginning of the battle. However, the Yellow Emperor, aided by ingenious strategies and advanced technologies, managed to prevail. He is said to have summoned spirits and used a compass to counter Chi You’s magical mists, which allowed him to triumph.
The Yellow Emperor’s victory over Chi You symbolizes the triumph of order over chaos, and marks the founding of an era of civilization in ancient China. Read the rest of the article.
Middle East , gods of war and destruction
Anat, destruction and creation
Anat , the Phoenician goddess of war and fertility, is a formidable and complex figure. Known for her power and aggression, she embodies destruction on the battlefield. The Phoenicians revered her as a relentless warrior, capable of sowing death among her enemies.
In mythological tales, Anat is often depicted as fighting mercilessly, ravaging opposing armies. Her ferocity makes her invincible, and she embodies the brute force necessary for victory. The gods themselves respect her for her ability to restore order through violence. Anat thus plays a vital role in maintaining cosmic balance.
However, she is not only a warrior goddess. Anat is also linked to fertility. Her duality reflects the idea that destruction and creation go hand in hand. She ensures the continuity of life after battle. Her role as protector of the cycles of life counterbalances her violent nature.
Revered throughout the Levant, Anat is a symbol of feminine strength. She embodies both war and rebirth, making her an essential figure in Phoenician mythology, where she combines destruction and fertility in a fearsome harmony.
Nergal, Mesopotamian god of war and the underworld
Nergal , the Mesopotamian god of war and destruction, also rules the underworld. He embodies violence, epidemics and chaos. In Mesopotamian mythology, Nergal is therefore a feared figure, often associated with death and the plagues that ravage peoples.
He leads the heavenly armies with unmatched brutality. His destructive powers strike terror into his enemies, whom he mercilessly destroys. Nergal does not hesitate to use violence to restore order, even if it means plunging the world into chaos. The ancient Mesopotamians prayed to him to avert war and calamity, while fearing his wrath. They often depicted him as a lion.
His connection to the underworld reinforces his image as a destroyer. Nergal reigns over the dead, ruling the underworld with absolute power. He is also associated with the spread of epidemics, which he uses to weaken mortals.
Despite his fearsome appearance, Nergal plays a necessary role in the cosmic balance. He embodies the destruction necessary to make way for renewal. His presence reminds us that chaos and violence are an integral part of the world’s order, just as life and death are.
America , celestial figures
Huitzilopochtli: Aztec god of war and the sun
Huitzilopochtli , god of war and the sun, was the patron of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztecs. Considered the protector of the Aztec people, he embodied victory and military power. Huitzilopochtli was linked to the cosmic order, requiring human sacrifices to ensure the balance of the world.
According to mythology, Huitzilopochtli was born on top of the Serpent Mountain, Coatepec. From the moment he was born, he triumphed over his enemy brothers and sisters, thus proving his warrior nature. This legend quickly placed him at the heart of Aztec beliefs, making him a feared and venerated god. Human sacrifices, often practiced at the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan, were intended to offer him the strength necessary to fight the darkness.
Huitzilopochtli was depicted with warrior attributes: a spear, a shield decorated with feathers, and brightly colored clothing. His image embodied the sun in motion, traveling across the sky to repel the forces of chaos. Festivals in his honor, such as the Panquetzaliztli, punctuated the religious life of the Aztecs and strengthened their social cohesion.
Huitzilopochtli symbolized warrior determination and the duty to protect cosmic balance. His legend has survived the centuries, recalling the importance of war and sacrifice in Mesoamerican culture.
Texcatlipoca
Tezcatlipoca , one of the major deities of the Aztec pantheon, is primarily known as the god of the night and stars. However, his influence extends beyond the nocturnal sphere. He also plays an important role in conflicts and war intrigues. Considered a complex and mysterious god, Tezcatlipoca embodies both destruction and regeneration, war and magic.
In Aztec mythology, he is often associated with deception, discord, and power struggles. Tezcatlipoca is described as a skilled strategist, able to manipulate his enemies and sow confusion. This ability to orchestrate conflicts made him a feared and respected god. In particular, he could determine the outcome of a war thanks to his ability to influence the destiny of men.
Tezcatlipoca possesses a number of attributes. His obsidian mirror is a symbol of vision and clairvoyance, but also of war and destruction. This mirror allows him to see the past, present and future. It thus gives him an almost omniscient power over human events and decisions.
For the Aztecs, honoring Tezcatlipoca meant seeking divine protection in battle, while accepting the uncertainties of war. His figure recalls the importance of cunning and courage, qualities essential for survival in a world where brute force was not the only path to victory.
Mixcoatl Aztec god of hunting and war
Mixcoatl , an Aztec deity, was worshipped as a god of hunting and war. His name, meaning “cloud serpent,” evokes his connection to the stars and celestial paths. This cosmic association made him a guide for warriors and hunters.
According to mythology, Mixcoatl was the father of many gods, including Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent. His legend is marked by episodes of struggle and conquest. As a warrior god, he embodied the spirit of the hunt and battle. His followers believed that his powers helped them navigate the darkness and thwart the traps of their enemies.
Mixcoatl was often depicted with hunting attributes: bow, arrows and deer skin. These elements emphasized his protective role towards those who lived from hunting.
Mixcoatl was also linked to celestial phenomena. He symbolized the Milky Way, which was considered a sacred path for the souls of the deceased. The stars, in particular, played an important role in his cult, illustrating his ability to guide and defend.
Viracocha: creator god and warrior of the Andes
Viracocha , a major deity of the Incas, was the creator god and a powerful warrior. He was considered the one who shaped the world and human beings. However, his role was not limited to creation. Viracocha was also a conqueror, fighting against darkness to establish cosmic order.
Legend has it that Viracocha emerged from the primordial waters, bringing light and life to a world of chaos. With his divine power, he created mountains, rivers, and the skies. He then shaped humanity, teaching them the laws of life and civilization.
However, faced with the forces of disorder, he had to take on a warrior role. Inca myths describe him as a wise but fearsome god, capable of unleashing storms and lightning to restore balance.
Viracocha was often depicted with attributes of creator and warrior: a staff or scepter to symbolize his power, and rich clothing, decorated with celestial motifs. His imposing presence recalled his duality, between generosity and destruction. The Incas venerated him as the guarantor of prosperity, praying that he would maintain order in the face of the threats of chaos.
Viracocha, by combining creation and war, illustrates the importance of cosmic order in Andean culture. His legacy, still present in local traditions, testifies to the depth of his legend.
Ku , the Hawaiian god of war, represents strength, virility and victory. His cult extends throughout the archipelago, particularly during times of war. Hawaiian warriors invoke him by offering sacrifices, some of which are human. Indeed, these rituals aimed to obtain victory in exchange for bloodshed. Furthermore, Ku embodies brutality and tactical intelligence, two qualities essential to war.
Ku is not limited to war. He also symbolizes virility, fertility, and the protection of communities. Thus, he occupies a central place in the daily life of ancient Hawaiians. War chiefs, in addition to seeking his favor on the battlefield, also asked him to ensure the continuation of their lineages and the prosperity of their lands.
Furthermore, Ku is linked to the sea. Fishermen pray to him to ensure abundant catches and to protect their boats. This connection with the sea demonstrates Ku’s versatility, capable of influencing both conflicts and natural resources.
His worship is manifested through temples, called heiau , and ceremonies including songs, dances and sacrifices. Ku thus embodies an omnipresent god, both in wars and in the protection of Hawaiian communities. Learn more about Ku, god of war in Hawaii.
Tūmatauenga
Tūmatauenga is one of the principal gods in New Zealand Māori mythology. He is often considered the god of human conflict. He embodies the warlike and destructive aspect of humanity, symbolizing violence, war and struggle. Tūmatauenga, literally “the heart of man” or “the fighting spirit”, plays a central role in Māori stories as a deity of battles and clashes.
In Māori cosmogony, Tūmatauenga is the son of Ranginui, the Sky, and Papatūānuku, the Earth. His conflicts with his brothers, especially Tāwhirimātea, the storm god, reflect the constant struggle between the natural elements and humanity. While his brothers choose to appease conflicts, Tūmatauenga is distinguished by his willingness to fight and conquer. This behavior makes him the protector of the Māori martial art, the “haka”, and of warrior practices.
However, Tūmatauenga’s power is not limited to destruction. His presence is also a reminder of the need for strength and courage to overcome obstacles. He thus symbolises resilience in the face of challenges. Māori honour Tūmatauenga to achieve victory in war, but also to strengthen their resolve in the trials of daily life. His worship highlights the importance of finding a balance between strength and wisdom, while respecting ancestral traditions.
Thus, Tūmatauenga embodies not only anger and violence, but also discipline and survival.
*
In conclusion, these deities illustrate how cultures around the world have often personified war, each with its own characteristics, either related to violence, destruction, or sometimes, to wisdom, justice and protection. Finally, they give us indications on the place of war in each civilization.
In Strategy, Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart develops the concept of the indirect approach. He provides a broad overview of military history from antiquity to World War II to demonstrate that the indirect approach yields far more decisive results at a significantly lower cost than the direct approach.
Avoiding Strength Against Strength
Liddell Hart contrasts the indirect approach, which he advocates, with the direct attack on the enemy’s army, for which he views Clausewitz as the main proponent. Indeed, in a strength-against-strength approach, even in the case of victory, it is likely that the winner will no longer be in a position to exploit their success.
One example he uses is the Battle of Malplaquet. In 1709, the French were on the ropes; the numerical superiority of the coalition (England, Austria, the Netherlands) was overwhelming. As a result, Marlborough and Prince Eugene opted for a direct approach, with the well-known outcome. Their losses were so severe that, despite their victory, they destroyed any hope of winning the war.
Liddell Hart’s Indirect Approach : A Geographical Approach
According to Liddell Hart, a series of movements along the line of least expectation, threatening multiple objectives at once, should allow for surprising the enemy and striking them where they are weakest while keeping them uncertain, “on the horns of a dilemma” (Sherman). This method has proven far more decisive and economical throughout history than the direct attack on the enemy’s army.
For example, in 1864, Sherman’s raid did not target the Confederate army but the cities. He took care to always move in a direction that forced Confederate forces to defend multiple objectives. This movement proved decisive and hastened the defeat of the Confederacy.
The indirect approach for Liddell Hart is initially geographical, but it also has another dimension.
Deception and Psychology
The geographical dimension of the indirect approach, which brings surprise and indecision, is inseparable from its psychological dimension.
Liddell Hart recounts numerous instances of military deception in Strategy, such as Napoleon’s ruse at Arcole, where he sent his trumpeters behind enemy lines to signal a fake charge. The purpose of deception is to create a psychological effect, targeting the mind of the opposing commander. The indirect approach seeks to unbalance the enemy psychologically as much as physically.
Liddell Hart cites the example of Germany’s capitulation at the end of World War I. In 1918, the German armies were undoubtedly in a bad situation, but they were not yet defeated. Nevertheless, Germany surrendered. This can be explained by the fact that the Entente’s offensive in the Balkans shattered the German High Command’s confidence, leading them to believe—perhaps wrongly—that there was no way out of their situation.
Imbalance and Center of Gravity
The goal remains to unbalance the enemy, through actions on their forces, but also on the psychology of their leader.
Ultimately, the core of Liddell Hart’s analysis is the search for the enemy’s center of gravity, which is not necessarily their army. It can be material, such as their rear supply lines, or immaterial, like the mind of their commander.
It’s not about simply attacking the enemy where they are weakest, but rather identifying the point that, when pressured, will unbalance the enemy’s entire system with minimal effort. Liddell Hart is probably much closer to Clausewitz than he thinks…
Strategy and Grand Strategy
Liddell Hart’s analysis is limited to the use of military means within an armed conflict. This is because, for Liddell Hart, “strategy” is confined to warfare and is limited to the use of military forces. Only “grand strategy” looks beyond the horizon of war and considers the use of non-military means.
Finally, it’s worth noting that Liddell Hart’s reading of Clausewitz seems somewhat superficial. His thinking is reduced to a doctrine of frontal and reckless attacks on the enemy’s strongest point, whereas On War contains much more than that. However, discussing it here would take us too far…
In Introduction à la stratégie (Introduction to Strategy), French General André Beaufre presents the conclusions of his reflections on strategy in a dense, concise, and clear text.
According to Beaufre, the meaning of the term “strategy” is often misunderstood. Historically, it was the science and art of supreme command, transmitted by example. However, with the evolution of warfare, this empirical transmission became obsolete, giving way to strategic research.
Nevertheless, this research remains inevitably influenced by the conflicts of its time. Only an abstract approach truly allows one to grasp the nature of strategy.
The Purpose of Strategy According to Beaufre
Before defining strategy, one must understand its purpose. Strategy does not unfold in a vacuum; it has a clear goal:
“The purpose of strategy is to achieve the objectives set by politics by making the best use of available means.”
Beaufre’s Definition of Strategy
Following the purpose, comes the definition. The famous definition of strategy appears early in Beaufre’s work. It is “the art of the dialectic of wills using force to resolve their conflict.”
In war, each side seeks the opponent’s acceptance of the conditions it wishes to impose. Ultimately, it’s about convincing the other that continuing the fight is futile. Strategy thus targets the opponent’s will.
It is by placing a strategic problem within the psychological terrain of the adversary that one can properly assess the decisive factors. Therefore, the goal is to “reach a decision by creating and exploiting a situation that leads to a moral disintegration of the opponent, sufficient to make them accept the conditions one wants to impose.”
Thus, both sides aim simultaneously for the moral disintegration of the other. Strategic action is therefore dialectical: each side seeks to act while countering the actions of the other. Strategy becomes a struggle for freedom of action.
In the final analysis, according to Beaufre, strategy should be considered an art, as it requires the strategist to assess key elements based solely on their judgment. It is impossible to establish a set of rules that would apply in every circumstance.
The Means of Strategy According to Beaufre
Both belligerants choose their means by confronting the possibilities and vulnerabilities of the adversary. The question becomes: who do we want to defeat?
This leads to very concrete questions. For example: is capturing the enemy’s capital essential or not? Is the enemy particularly sensitive to human losses? The goal is to find the best way to achieve moral disintegration. From this confrontation of possibilities and the adversary’s vulnerabilities, a strategic objective emerges.
Strategic “Models”
General Beaufre identifies five strategic “models” based on means and objectives:
Very powerful means for a modest objective: exerting a direct threat (nuclear deterrence).
Modest objective, but insufficient means: limited freedom of action, requiring indirect pressure.
Important objective, but limited means and freedom of action: successive limited actions, like Hitler between 1935 and 1939.
Great freedom of action but weak means: prolonged total struggle of low military intensity, leading to the adversary’s moral exhaustion.
Strong military means: military victory through the destruction of the enemy’s forces and occupation of its territory. However, the objective remains the opponent’s will. This model only works with a quick victory; otherwise, its cost becomes disproportionate to the stakes.
*
For General André Beaufre, strategy is “the art of the dialectic of wills using force to resolve their conflict.” It serves to “achieve the objectives set by politics by making the best use of available means.”
Strategic reasoning thus combines both material and psychological factors. It is a method of thinking that allows one to direct events rather than merely endure them.
In Études sur le combat (Studies on Combat, 1880, posthumous), Colonel Charles Ardant du Picq (1821–1870) sets out to base his analysis on soldiers and combat. He takes them as they are in order to determine what is realistically achievable in war.
Indeed, what can be conceived in theory or practiced in maneuvers is not always feasible in combat. This is due to that “primary instrument of war”—the human being—and the supreme emotion in war: fear.
Ardant du Picq analyzes ancient wars, particularly the tactical formations of the Romans, before dissecting 19th-century combat.
Morale is the Key Dimension of Combat
For Ardant du Picq, morale is the key dimension of combat. Consequently, all attempts to approach war mathematically are futile.
He observes that in combat, gunfire is not very effective. Studies of the time showed that it took approximately 3,000 rounds to wound an enemy. This was due to the conditions of combat such as the smoke from weapons and, above all, fear. Soldiers would fire quickly and without aiming, creating the illusion of safety and helping to forget the danger. In many ways, this has not changed. He notes that the fire from skirmishers, who were less exposed because they were dispersed, was far more effective than that of battalions.
Physical fire has less impact on the enemy than movement. Movement brings the psychological threat of an impending clash, causing the weaker-minded to break. Ardant du Picq analyzes cavalry and infantry battles to show that hand-to-hand combat almost never occurs. He demonstrates that the unit with the weaker morale, often the one that must withstand the shock, will turn and flee at the mere prospect of physical contact with the enemy.
Discipline According to Ardant du Picq
Under these circumstances, how can soldiers be kept in combat? Only discipline makes this possible. In Studies on Combat, discipline can resemble mutual surveillance between soldiers or what we might call the social pressure of the unit. The author notes that punishments allowed at the time were no longer sufficient to keep troops in line, and a different motivator was needed.
Discipline, in fact, should not be understood as merely obeying orders without question, but as what enables soldiers to stay with and for their comrades in situations where instinct tells them to flee.
Ultimately, military organizations and command systems are, above all, mechanisms for managing fear.
“The combatant is flesh and bone, body and soul, and no matter how strong the soul, it cannot so dominate the body that there is no revolt of the flesh and disturbance of the mind in the face of destruction.” — Colonel Charles Ardant du Picq,
In Stratégie théorique II(Theoretical Strategy II), General Poirier describes a form of conflict that extends beyond the traditional concept of war under the pressure of nuclear weapons. This state between war and peace is reminiscent of what we now call “hybrid warfare”. Which, by the way, has always existed—but that’s another debate…
Competitive Commerce
He introduces the concept of “Integral Strategy” into the theoretical field. In order to achieve their political goals while countering those of their adversaries, sociopolitical actors combine military, economic, and cultural strategies.
The state of conflictual tension without resorting to physical violence, which arises from the clash of different actors’ political goals, is called “competitive commerce.” However, with the advent of nuclear weapons, this state of tension evolves into what the general calls “generalized aggressiveness.”
Indeed, due to the prospect of a nuclear confrontation, the realization of a state’s political project is largely deprived of the military dimension of their integral strategy. This results in increased activity and aggressiveness in economic and cultural strategies, but with the obligation to remain “below the critical threshold of open conflict”. This blurs the distinction between peace and war in a “crisis maneuver.”
In this context, military strategy must use “sub-war forms.” Previously, war encompassed military strategy; now, it is merely one of its modalities.
Finally, let’s read the general’s description of this type of conflict. While expressing the reality of the Cold War, he almost exactly describe hybrid warfare:
“Localized and sporadic interventions, with varying degrees of controlled violence (unrest, attacks, sabotage, coups, piracy, terrorism, subversion, etc.) support ideological propaganda and economic pressures that become challenges, with bargaining that no longer hides the fact that it is blackmail.”
“ Our youth love luxury, have bad manners, mock authority, and show no respect for the elderly. In our time, children are tyrants. ” — Socrates
This brief reflection on the past shows us that the crisis of authority remains a highly subjective phenomenon. It must be studied in light of its contemporary manifestations.
In Qu’est-ce qu’un chef ? (What Is a Leader?), General de Villiers highlights the paradox of a crisis of authority accompanied by a strong demand for leadership.
How does this crisis of authority manifest, and how should we respond?
Authority should ultimately benefit those upon whom it is exercised. Without this, it will remain in perpetual crisis.
Authority: according to Hannah Arendt (1906–1975), authority is a form of power that requires neither persuasion nor coercion. Etymologically, it stems from “to augment.” Yet, it remains a form of domination.
The Crisis of Institutions Representing Authority
All the institutions that have traditionally represented authority no longer wield the power they once did.
The Church no longer exercises real authority over the behavior of the masses as it did before the late 19th century. Papal decrees no longer hold political influence.
Schools are a prime battleground for the contemporary crisis of authority. Some teachers struggle to maintain classroom discipline, and some even refuse to assert their authority. For instance, in 2018, a student in Créteil threatened his teacher with a weapon. Arendt noted that if authority is in crisis in education, it’s because “adults refuse to assume responsibility for the world into which they have placed children.” Moreover, the school’s failure to mitigate social inequalities has diminished its legitimacy.
This crisis is highly visible because it coincides with a crisis of power (distinct from authority) over physical bodies. Exercising control over bodies outside the economic realm is increasingly difficult. For example, the Universal National Service is controversial because it’s intended to be mandatory. Furthermore, discipline in schools is hard to enforce. The end of military service has removed the routine political control over bodies.
On closer analysis, however, this crisis of authority reveals itself as a crisis of legitimacy.
Crisis of Authority or Crisis of Legitimacy?
The crisis of authority is, in fact, a crisis of legitimacy.
Authority is grounded in legitimacy. In Economy and Society, Max Weber distinguishes three forms of legitimacy for authority:
Traditional authority, based on sacred respect for customs and those who hold power by tradition;
Legal-rational authority, grounded in the validity of laws established through legislative or bureaucratic means;
Charismatic authority, which relies on the devotion of followers to a leader with exceptional qualities.
In reality, these three forms of legitimacy are often intertwined.
Traditional authority has largely evaporated. Arendt noted that authority disappeared from the modern world due to the rise of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, which challenged all forms of traditional authority.
Legal-rational authority is insufficient. In Le fil de l’épée (The Edge of the Sword), de Gaulle noted that rank alone is not enough to command obedience; it must be coupled with charisma. Today, as Christophe Guilluy points out in French Fractures, the political sphere has been discredited in favor of consensual or technical solutions, which are ill-suited to challenge economic domination.
Knowledge as a source of authority is now questioned, due to its easy accessibility through ICT. Michel Serres addresses this in Thumbelina, noting that knowledge is no longer the sole prerogative of teachers or doctors. Thus, the sources of authority in schools need to be redefined with new value added by teachers.
Authority is indeed in crisis, but our societies can address it.
While the crisis of authority is real, its consequences can be managed by placing humanity at the center of authority.
This involves aligning authority with human measures. According to General de Villiers in Qu’est ce qu’un chef ? (What Is a Leader?), at the heart of the crisis of authority is its dehumanization. We might question the role of leaders in the corporate sphere, their exemplarity, and their willingness to engage with subordinates. Indeed, their task is to maximize profitability, their workforce is easily replaceable, and they themselves are embedded in systems of domination and exploitation.
What Is Authority?
Authority is about uplifting others. Etymologically, “authority” comes from “to augment.” This is the condition sine qua non for the acceptance of authority: it must benefit the one who submits to it, as they do so voluntarily. The benefit is not material, like a salary, which would remain in the realm of power since individuals are compelled to earn a living. It is moral: belonging to a prestigious group, enhancing skills or personal qualities that one values. This explains the need for leadership noted by General de Villiers.
What About the Military?
The military experience serves as a laboratory for contemporary forms of authority. Uniquely, it trains leaders in the exercise of authority. It’s based on exemplarity and a leader’s ability to ensure the continuity of their unit (recruitment, rest, training). Leaders who deplete their unit without renewing its strength, who consume more than they build, see their authority diminish and are forced to rely on power. Moreover, the military operates in a realm insulated from profitability. Leaders serve their superiors by fulfilling missions and serve their subordinates by preparing them for engagement. They are not seeking to exploit them (in the Marxist sense). Finally, they are statutorily responsible for defending their subordinates’ interests.
By refocusing leadership on human needs, we can restore balance to the structures necessary for our society. This requires distancing ourselves from the neoliberal dogma, which culminates in a society of entirely “free” individuals, placed in competition and recognizing only the law of the market as legitimate.
However, the crisis of authority also reveals a deeper crisis of power that could fracture the cohesion of French society.
Additional Reflection
Notably, this “crisis of authority” actually benefits the dominant class.
There is no crisis of authority in prestigious Parisian high schools or elite universities. These institutions serve as legitimizing tools for the elite’s continued dominance through academic credentials (Bourdieu). There is also no crisis of authority in corporations generally, which maintain power dynamics. A disgruntled employee challenging the authority of their leader would quickly be shown the door.
It’s primarily the dominated classes who challenge authority, and only in the public sphere (the State, police, schools)—to their own detriment (hindering social mobility due to ignorance of the real rules of the game). This may be because authority and the State, as the visible face of power, are unconsciously, yet rightly, perceived as instruments of social domination. Economic domination, however, remains invisible and is even viewed as legitimate and natural.
The State and public authority may indeed serve as instruments of domination for the benefit of the ruling class. However, in France at least, they also act as bulwarks for the working class against economic power. The crisis of authority may thus stem from a self-destructive reaction to a vague sense of injustice. In this sense, we could say the crisis of authority benefits the dominant class. Perhaps, given its persistence over time, it serves the structural function of perpetuating the subordinate position of the dominated class, since the model being challenged remains the only one offering freedom, social justice, and security.
Could the real cause of the crisis of authority be class struggle?
Understanding the Structural Submission of the Media to Dominant Power According to Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent
According to Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent, mainstream Western media structurally defend the interests of the ruling power.
In Manufacturing Consent (1988), Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman identify five filters through which Western media align with the interests of dominant power. This means that the latter doesn’t need to resort to censorship.
First, it’s important to remember that major media outlets are huge corporations run by billionaires or CEOs, who are themselves closely controlled by purely profit-driven interest groups. These companies, therefore, share common interests with other corporations, banks, and the government.
Advertising
The economic model of mainstream media relies on advertising. This dependency leads to an alignment with advertisers’ interests and a reduction in content quality.
Source Selection
Powerful institutions maintain a continuous flow of information to the media. These “official” sources (government, industrial groups, experts) are cheaper than sending a reporter into the field. Moreover, their information is readily accepted and requires no verification. Today, we can cite the media’s obsession with the Twitter accounts of political leaders, a convenient and free source.
Flak. Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent.
Any dissenting opinion faces a barrage of criticism from institutional actors, such as think tanks (often conservative), the government, or other media outlets.
Ideology
Lastly, information that aligns with the dominant ideology (at the time of Manufacturing Consent, anti-communism) is less likely to be scrutinized than information that challenges it.
*
To summarize, according to Manufacturing Consent, mainstream media’s defense of ruling power interests is structural, almost invisible, and therefore much more effective than censorship.
New Delhi has nuclear weapons but is unable to electrify its entire territory. Under these circumstances, will India be able to establish itself as a great power on the international stage?
Over the next ten years, India is likely to be confined to a regional power role because it is a paper tiger and due to its relations with its neighbors.
The Assets of an Emerging Great Power
India possesses several assets that suggest it could become a great power in the short term.
Nuclear Power. New Delhi acquired nuclear weapons in 1998. It is believed to have around 100 nuclear warheads, bombers, and a nuclear-powered submarine (with a second one under construction).
Stable Political Regime. India is known as the “world’s largest democracy.” It manages to have 900 million voters in a stable system since 1947. However, the ruling party of Narendra Modi exploits religious divisions, which can sometimes lead to violence.
Desire for Power. India has a genuine desire for power. It has a prestigious past and sees itself as a great power. For instance, it attempted to send a probe to the Moon in July 2019.
However, India’s desire for power faces structural obstacles.
Limitations to India’s Power
Certain successes should not obscure the real limitations to India’s ambition for power.
An Illusory Economy
Although India shows a growth rate of 7%, higher than China’s, and has risen to the 6th largest economy globally, just ahead of France, it still faces deep challenges. The country struggles to feed its population. One in two children suffers from malnutrition. India needs to integrate 12 million new entrants into the labor market each year, requiring an 8% growth rate. Inequalities are increasing, and 20% of the population lives on less than $2 a day. Furthermore, South Asian economies are poorly integrated regionally: India’s trade with its neighbors accounts for only 2%.
Population and Territory Issues
While the population size (1.3 billion and growing) and territory size are power factors, India struggles to harness this space. Not the entire country is electrified. Additionally, while the population is large, the education system is inadequate, especially in rural areas: some schools lack teachers, and 25% of the population is illiterate. The state of public health is unsatisfactory, with the country spending only 1% of its GDP on health (compared to 11% for France). Some power factors thus become limitations to Indian power.
An Ineffective Military
Although India has nuclear weapons, its armed forces and military-industrial complex are actually underperforming. The Indian army has 1.2 million personnel, but its equipment is outdated. It is undergoing modernization, but its industrial and technological defense base cannot supply the needed equipment. As a result, India is the world’s largest arms importer, acquiring Scorpene submarines and Rafale jets.
Limited Soft Power
While India is known for its cuisine, yoga, and especially Bollywood, its diplomatic weight is overall insufficient. Some of its 160 embassies lack ambassadors. Moreover, it lacks a network of cultural centers like the Confucius Institutes or the Alliance Française.
These internal limitations are exacerbated by a contested regional environment.
A Contested Regional Environment that Could Limit India’s Power
Competition in India’s regional environment influences its internal situation and is likely to limit its power expansion in the medium term.
Border Conflicts. India’s borders remain geopolitical issues. China claims Arunachal Pradesh in the Himalayas, and Pakistan claims Kashmir. India has fought several border wars: in 1962 against China, which annexed Aksai Chin; against Pakistan in 1948 (status quo maintained), 1965, and 1971 (India’s victories). Skirmishes occurred in Kargil in 1999, with the latest clashes in 2019. The accession of both countries to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2017 does not seem to have changed the situation.
These border conflicts fuel internal tensions. Kashmir, historically a tension point between Pakistan and India, sees a strong Indian military presence. Riots regularly erupt to protest against troop behavior. Pro-independence movements and jihadist groups have committed attacks (2001 against the Indian parliament, 2019 by Jaish e Mohammed against an Indian barracks). Pakistan supports some terrorist movements to defend its claims and tie down 600,000 Indian soldiers. This region, which requested attachment to India under pressure from Pakistani incursions in 1947, is strategic as it controls the Indus River, crucial for water supply to both India and Pakistan.
Competition with China. The competition between China and India seems to favor China. India’s Look East Policy, with a regional scope, is confronted by the globally oriented Belt and Road Initiative. China’s navy is superior to India’s. Economic competition also heavily favors China: India exports iron to China and imports manufactured goods, reflecting the relationship between a developing country and a developed neighbor. Finally, China firmly opposes India’s access to the UN Security Council.
*
India’s aspirations for power may thus be hindered by its economic development limits and especially by a contested regional environment that weighs on its power policy.
However, the American reaction to the rise of Chinese power could provide India an opportunity to position itself as an important intermediary.
