India’s infrastructure success stories are increasingly visible to the world and to its own citizens. The sleek Vande Bharat trains gliding between major cities, the engineering marvel of Mumbai’s Coastal Road, and the efficiency of using the Mumbai Metro to beat traffic woes are all signs of a nation rising — confident, capable, and future-focused.
In the recent past, India has also architected ambitious connectivity and trade frameworks such as the International North–South Transport Corridor, the International Solar Alliance, the I2U2 grouping with Israel, the UAE, and the US, and the recently announced India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). These demonstrate India’s ability to convene, negotiate, and deliver visionary projects that generate shared prosperity.
Yet, recent developments have revealed how quickly economic momentum can be disrupted when trust falters.
In August 2025, the US imposed a 50% tariff on Indian refined oil exports made from Russian crude — a decision impacting $4–6 billion in trade and affecting up to 20% of India’s refined oil exports. Though rooted in energy geopolitics, the move illustrates how policy shifts can be swift and punitive when mutual confidence and trust are lacking. In 2023, Canada indefinitely suspended free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations with India, stalling an $8.1 billion bilateral trade relationship. The freeze was partly driven by diaspora-related political tensions. In September 2025, there were huge anti-immigrant rallies in UK and Australia, with the Indian diaspora getting caught in the crosscurrents of the local politics of mass immigration.
These episodes highlight a stark reality: In today’s geopolitical climate, economic ties alone cannot insulate nations from shocks rooted in conflicting geopolitical interests, mistrust, perception gaps, and unresolved tensions. Infrastructure and trade agreements can be negotiated, but trust—once eroded—can delay, derail, or diminish these gains.
For India, whose rise depends on both expanding trade and projecting stability, addressing trust deficits has become a strategic imperative.
Trust is the bridge to peace. Trade may drive growth, but without trust, growth cannot last.
In this age of economic ambition and geopolitical repositioning, are we also investing in the social and emotional infrastructure required to hold our key partnerships together? Can we truly thrive in a fractured and multipolar world without simultaneously building corridors of trust?
The Need for Trust Corridors
Globally, we are witnessing an erosion of trust —between citizens and their governments, between communities divided by faith or ethnicity, and even between nations traditionally aligned through diplomatic partnerships.
Transactional diplomacy may facilitate deals, but it struggles to reconcile narratives or sustain long-term cooperation. While trade corridors connect markets, we need trust corridors to connect hearts and minds.
If trade corridors are physical and economic pathways, trust corridors are structured, sustained channels for dialogue, cultural exchange, conflict resolution, and cooperative problem-solving. These channels address the underlying human and relational dimensions that traditional diplomacy often overlooks. Unlike ad-hoc dialogue, trust corridors institutionalise relationship-building, making it resilient to political cycles, media narratives, and crisis shocks. They focus on creating shared value and mutual understanding. By embedding trust into relationships, trust corridors can prevent political disagreements from spilling over into economic or cultural domains — and vice versa.
Trust corridors would not replace trade or strategic alliances; they would complement them by building resilience into partnerships. This is particularly critical for India, where diaspora tensions, global perception gaps, and social fractures increasingly influence foreign policy outcomes.
Dialogue alone is not enough. Trust corridors go beyond talk — they create action-oriented systems that nurture cooperation and strengthen societal resilience.
Trust Corridors vs. Traditional Dialogue Platforms Skeptics may ask: “Don’t such dialogue forums already exist?”
Indeed, India and its neighbors often hold bilateral talks on water-sharing, borders, or trade. The difference lies in intent, scope, and durability.
Traditional forums are transactional — focused on what countries want. Trust corridors are transformational — focused on how countries relate. Dialogue resolves today’s problems; trust corridors prevent tomorrow’s conflicts.
Lessons from Global Precedents
Several nations have recognized the strategic necessity of institutionalised trust-building and created high-profile platforms that function, in effect, as trust corridors. These examples offer valuable insights into how India might evolve its own approach:
France – The Paris Peace Forum
Launched in 2018, the Paris Peace Forum was France’s strategic response to growing global multipolarity and democratic backsliding. France invests approximately €6–8 million annually to convene heads of state, businesses, and civil society to collaborate on global challenges — from climate governance to conflict mediation. While tangible policy shifts are limited, the Forum may have somewhat enhanced France’s diplomatic convening power, especially among middle powers and multilateral institutions, reinforcing its image as a global bridge-builder which has however been more recently damaged by the French Government’s alignment with US and NATO policies on some critical issues.
Colombia – FARC Peace Process
Colombia’s peace process with the FARC (2016–2024) demonstrates the importance of combining political negotiation and social reintegration. Multiple actors — government, civil society, religious leaders, and international partners — helped reintegrate former fighters and rebuild trust. A subtle yet profound contribution is said to have come from Indian spiritual leader Gurudev Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who inspired FARC leaders to adopt Gandhian principles of nonviolence (although that claim has been disputed). This showed how India’s spiritual heritage can complement formal diplomacy and unlock dialogue when politics alone stalls progress. Since 2017, over 13,000 ex-combatants have registered for reintegration, and homicides in former conflict zones have fallen by 30%.
The same approach of leveraging Indic wisdom of yoga and meditation has been used to bridge divides between former gang members and police officers in Los Angeles, and to unite hearts and minds between the Greek Christian and Turkish Muslim communities in divided Cyprus.
South Africa – Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)
Post-apartheid South Africa established the TRC as a public platform for truth-telling, acknowledgement, and restorative justice. While imperfect, the TRC enhanced South Africa’s international reputation, rebuilt investor confidence, and allowed the nation to re-enter global forums as a reconciled democracy.
Canada – Indigenous Reconciliation
Canada’s National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation addresses historic injustices against Indigenous communities. Though incomplete, the process has positioned Canada as a “moral middle power”, bolstered Canada’s role in global human rights and mediation efforts, and improved domestic social stability, crucial for economic growth and investment.
Ireland – Shared Future Framework
Ireland’s peace process, anchored by the Good Friday Agreement, went beyond political compromise to address cultural and social divides. Through Shared Education Programs like inclusive history education and community reconciliation funds, Ireland invested in cross-border cooperation and intergenerational healing. These initiatives reduced sectarian tensions while enhancing Ireland’s reputation as a model of peaceful transformation, opening doors for trade, tourism, and diplomatic influence.
Trust-building is not just moral work — it is a strategic investment that improves global perception, facilitates economic growth, enhances resilience in times of crisis, and stabilises fragile environments.
Responding to Fragile Geopolitics – Real-Time Application of Trust Corridors
Trust corridors must move beyond abstract ideals to tangible, high-impact programs that draw from India’s heritage to propose practical solutions, creating reciprocal goodwill and making trust corridors engines of shared progress. Two complementary strategies can be considered for scale up:
1. Building Empathy Through Immersive Experiences
Just as the American Jewish Committee hosts international delegations to Israel to reshape and mould perceptions, India can organise cross-sectoral immersions through the trust corridors framework. This is not an abstract idea—we already have a working template – wherein, through the ‘From India With Love’ initiative, we have brought delegations of American civic leaders, police officers, activists, and community advocates to India for experiential journeys into its culture, wisdom, and traditions. By combining spiritual immersion with civic dialogue and engagement with grassroots changemakers, these sojourns have modified the way in which some foreign leaders perceive India—from headlines to heartlines. Participants return as ‘trust ambassadors’ in their own societies, helping to reduce violence, foster cohesion, and create authentic goodwill towards India’s values and traditions.
2. Building Trust Through Solving Shared Challenges
Dialogue builds understanding, but shared action builds lasting trust. Initiatives like Cities4Peace apply India’s ancient wisdom and practices — meditation, conflict resolution, community healing — to reduce violence in American cities by bridging divides between Police and marginalised communities and between civic leaders and citizens. By scaling these models globally, India can help cities in Canada, Australia, Europe, and beyond to address polarisation, extremism, and unrest. This can demonstrate India’s value through service, and strengthen the diaspora’s reputation, showing they contribute to the wellbeing of host societies.
Trust corridors can directly address ongoing geopolitical tensions:
● In the Indian subcontinent, they can foster people-to-people relationships that complement Track 1 diplomacy, making peace processes more resilient. ● In the US and Canada, they can reduce diaspora-related tensions that spill over into trade and foreign policy.
● In the UK and Australia, they can counter anti-immigrant backlash by showcasing the diaspora’s contributions and addressing integration challenges.
India’s Competitive Position
Other middle powers are already investing heavily in cultural diplomacy:
● Turkey’s Yunus Emre Institute has 60+ centers worldwide.
● Brazil spends over $10 million annually on cultural promotion.
● Indonesia blends cultural outreach with economic initiatives.
By comparison, India’s Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), operates on an annual budget of $36–60 million, overseeing 35 cultural centers abroad and producing more than 100 major events annually. Additionally, India possesses unique assets, including a global diaspora network, a very extensive civilisational heritage, and Global recognition in well-being diplomacy, such as through the UN International Day of Yoga. However, without a coherent trust-building framework, these assets remain under-leveraged and reactive rather than strategic.
Three-Tier Strategy for Implementation
To be credible, trust corridors require institutional pathways, sustained investment, and political support beyond electoral cycles. India needs not create entirely new institutions but should equip existing ones with resources and mandates to deliver this vision.
A multi-tiered approach can make trust corridors sustainable:
1. Strengthen ICCR to integrate structured trust-building programming, including mediation and conflict resolution, alongside cultural diplomacy.
2. Leverage academic institutions such as IIMs and IITs to create research and innovation hubs for dialogue across domains—interfaith, diaspora, civic relations—giving them autonomy to pilot and scale initiatives.
3. Mobilise private sector stakeholders, particularly those affected by instability (tourism, tech, trade), to co-develop public-private trust platforms via CSR, endowments, and dedicated funds.
By doing so, India can institutionalise trust-building as a parallel track to trade expansion and security. The proposed structure would mirror other models like the Paris Peace Forum, while leveraging India’s own institutions and entrepreneurial spirit.
Conclusion
India’s growing influence in the trade and communication domains is undeniable. Its digital public infrastructure is world-class, and its economy now ranks among the top four globally. Yet in a fractured and multipolar world, true leadership demands more than GDP growth. It requires building bridges across divided societies and embedding trust within international relationships.
For India, sustained growth and stability will require not just expanding trade corridors but deliberately reducing trust deficits—at home, across the region, and globally.
If trade corridors define India’s economic ambitions, trust corridors can define India’s global legacy.
Anchored by institutional innovation, these trust corridors can protect India’s economic interests, elevate its diplomatic standing, and offer the world a roadmap for peaceful and harmonious coexistence. Whether by strengthening existing institutions or creating public–private platforms, India should view trust-building infrastructure not as a moral imperative but as a strategic necessity, while remaining well aware that generating public sympathy in another country does not necessarily resolve economic and strategic conflicts between governments and powerful interest groups.
This is India’s moment to harness timeless philosophies like ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ for practical global action — to become not just a Vishwaguru of knowledge, but a guide in building trust and living in harmony amidst diversity. India’s rise as an infrastructure and trade powerhouse is visible, but its long-term stability hinges on rebuilding global trust.
Add comment