According to a January 2025 Survey on trust, India has slipped to third place in public confidence in the government, businesses, media, and general trust in society, with lower-income groups demonstrating substantially lower levels of trust compared to their wealthier counterparts.[1] This decline is closely linked to the rise of populism, hyper-nationalist polarization, and particularly the Hindutva ideology.[2] The Indian state attributes this erosion of trust to both external and internal threats, including religious minorities, Naxal movements, tribal communities advocating for fundamental rights, and Dalits demanding public representation. These protest movements are often framed as national security risks. Conversely, marginalized groups, including religious minorities and lower castes, identify Hindutva ideology, aggressive nationalism, and politically driven hate rhetoric as primary causes of social fragmentation. Amid these broader societal divisions, the Indian Church faces both internal contradictions such as caste discrimination, linguistic differences, clericalism, and hierachicalism, and external pressures from the nationalist movement that perceives its presence as a challenge to the nationalist agenda. This article explores the theoretical dimensions of social trust within India’s rising populist and polarized landscape, emphasizing its role in fostering democratic stability and social cohesion. Additionally, it examines whether the Indian Church, through the principles of synodality, can serve as a catalyst for restoring trust within its institutional framework and the broader society.
Francis Fukuyama underscores the significance of social trust, asserting that it is “the most important commodity that will determine the fate of a society.”[3] Trust is fundamentally an attitudinal disposition towards others, grounded in the expectation that they will act in a trustworthy manner.[4] Karen S. Cook and Alexander Gerabsi distinguish between ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ trust.[5] Thick trust arises within close-knit social relationships, such as family and friendships, where interactions are characterized by strong personal bonds and familiarity. In contrast, thin trust extends to broader social relationships, encompassing acquaintances, colleagues, neighbors, strangers, and even foreigners.[6] Dominik Latusek and Thomasz Olejnicza further categorize trust into four distinct types: relational trust, organizational trust, institutional trust, and generalized trust.[7] Relational trust exists within intimate groups such as families and close friends. Organizational trust is a collective phenomenon shaped by shared membership and institutional, social, and psychological elements within an organization. Institutional trust refers to confidence people place in systems, rules, and structures that ensure societal stability and predictability.[8] Generalized trust—termed social trust by Kevin Vallier—refers to trust in individuals within one’s society with whom one has little personal familiarity.[9] Building social trust is a bidirectional process that involves expanding trust from relational trust to institutional, and organizational trust through an existing culture of generalized trust. This dynamic process is essential for enhancing social capital and fostering cooperation across different levels of society. Fukuyama argues that social trust strengthens relational, institutional, and organizational trust by creating an environment conducive to sustained collaboration and social cohesion.[10] However, the culture of social trust is historically contingent, shaped by accumulated experiences, traditions, and collective memory, while both endogenous factors such as cultural norms, shared values, history and exogenous factors like political institutions, economic policies, external crises influence its evolution. Understanding these dynamics, particularly the reciprocal relationship between social trust and polarization, is crucial for addressing societal fragmentation and fostering trust in diverse social contexts.
Drawing on the insights of Nolan McCarty, Kevin Vallier highlights the two distinct phenomena of social fragmentation: polarization and sorting.[11] Polarization refers to changing views on issues or strengthening loyalty to political groups, while sorting is about people with similar views and loyalties clustering together socially. These phenomena contribute to increased political division and ideological segregation. Further, Vallier makes a distinction between Issue-based and Affect-based polarization. Issue-based polarization is about divergence in policy positions.[12] Affect-based polarization transpires when individuals form new identities centered on their affiliation with a political group, driven by positive sentiments towards their in-group and hostility towards the out-group. On the other hand, issue-based sorting transpires when individuals align with distinct political groups predicated upon their preexisting positions on various issues. Conversely, affect-based sorting manifests when individuals affiliate with specific political groups driven by their positive or negative emotional dispositions towards those groups.[13] Building on Kevin Vallier’s insight, “partisan divergence” can encompass all four phenomena, providing a comprehensive understanding of socio-political polarization.[14] Scholars like McCarty argue that partisan divergence has significantly increased over the past decades.[15] The partisan divergence is driven more by emotional rather than rational disagreements.
The Political and Social Polarization in India
Within this framework, the current socio-political context in India becomes more comprehensible. At the heart of its polarization lies a fundamental question of nationhood: Should India uphold its secular identity or transition into a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu nation)?[16] This debate forms the central axis of contemporary political and social divisions.[17] Drawing on Kevin Vallier’s framework, polarization in India predominantly manifests as affect-based polarization and affect-based sorting. While the Congress-led secular government in post-independence India managed to contain these tensions to some extent, the rise of Hindu nationalism has significantly intensified them. The decisive electoral victories of 2014, 2019, and 2024 have further exacerbated intolerance and hostility, particularly toward India’s Muslim minority.
Historically, India has experienced polarization along caste, class, linguistic, and regional lines.[18] However, these divisions did not pose an existential threat to its secular fabric.[19] In contrast, the rise of Hindu nationalism presents a profound challenge to India’s foundational secular identity. The roots of this polarization can be traced to the colonial period, which witnessed two competing visions of nationhood. One, championed by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, envisioned a pluralistic India that embraced all individuals regardless of class, caste, ethnicity, or religion.[20] The other, articulated by Hindu nationalists, conceived India as a Hindu nation, where religious affiliation defines national identity. V.D. Savarkar introduced this ideology in Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, and it was later institutionalized as a mass movement in 1925 through the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a paramilitary organization advocating Hindu nationalism. Despite these ideological divisions, Hindu nationalism did not gain significant political traction until the late 1980s. Since then, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Narendra Modi, has strategically leveraged polarization as a political tool, deepening societal divisions. The successive electoral victories of 2014, 2019, and 2024 have intensified intolerance and hostility towards India’s minorities, especially Muslims, thus bringing the issue of national identity to the forefront of India’s socio-political landscape.
The Erosion of Social Trust
The most visible effect of the growing partisan divergence in India is the increasing intolerance and violence against minorities and other subaltern groups like tribals and Dalits, women, and transgender people. India has witnessed a significant rise in intolerance and violence, driven by a toxic political discourse wherein leaders demonize opponents and minority groups. This hostile environment has precipitated increased attacks on minorities, activists, and human rights defenders, with Muslims and Dalits being particularly targeted.
Such heightened violence has also resulted in the political marginalization of minorities. Muslims and Christians are experiencing growing marginalization in political life, marked by their underrepresentation in parliament and minimal representation within the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).[21] The Muslim minority represents just 4.24% of the Indian parliament. 2.5% Indian Christian population often remains unheard of and unaddressed, primarily due to their representation falling below 1%.[22] Political parties have largely avoided addressing minority concerns, thereby contributing to their exclusion and disenfranchisement. This stance has altered India’s political landscape, increasing identity politics’ prominence. The BJP’s success with Hindu nationalism has influenced other political parties to adopt milder forms of Hindutva. This shift has resulted in a decrease in advocates for pluralism and a growing reluctance to speak out against hate crimes. Further, attacks on independent institutions have drastically increased.[23] Due to political pressure and partisan attacks, India’s independent institutions have faced significant challenges. Crucial institutions, including the Reserve Bank of India, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the Election Commission, have experienced erosion of their integrity and operational independence.
Indian Church as the Catalyst of Social Trust
Despite being a religious minority in the country, the Indian Church plays a pivotal role in the domains of education (54,000 educational institutions), healthcare (20,000 hospitals), and social welfare. Despite its minority status, its contributions to social service have been substantial. This naturally raises an important question: Can the Indian Church serve as a catalyst for restoring social trust in light of the Gospel imperative to be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (cf. Mt 5:13-16)? To fulfill this mission, the Indian Church, especially its hierarchy, needs to be reformed. James Keenan, drawing on the insights of Robert Wuthnow, underscores the necessity of reforming religious institutions to ensure their active role in fostering social trust.[24] A fundamental challenge confronting the Indian Church today is the pervasive influence of clericalism and hierarchicalism, both of which have contributed to the alienation of the laity and the erosion of ecclesial trust. James Keenan draws a crucial distinction between clericalism and hierarchicalism. While clericalism is a culture or mindset within the Church that prioritizes the power, privileges, and superiority of the clergy, hierarchicalism reinforces structural barriers that shield bishops from public accountability. This dynamic impedes the emergence of bishops as true servants of the people, stifling their ability to model humility and pastoral leadership.[25]
Within the Indian Church, four primary factors contribute to the erosion of trust. First, some bishops were themselves perpetrators of criminal offenses. Second, the Catholic hierarchy often operates within legal frameworks that provide loopholes for evasion and deception. Third, the hierarchical structure affords bishops significant autonomy, allowing them to shield themselves from the consequences of their inaction. Finally, many church leaders claim ignorance of the abuse; however, this assertion has been refuted by substantial evidence indicating that, in numerous instances, experts had informed bishops about the crisis.[26] Efforts to hold the episcopacy accountable have often been inadequate. Addressing the entrenched culture of power and privilege within the Church is imperative. Unlike priests, bishops operate within fortified structures that shield them from accountability, allowing hierarchicalism to persist despite ongoing discussions on reform. Keenan argues that episcopal accountability is essential and that the institutional mechanisms enabling impunity must be dismantled. Citing Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta, he emphasizes that eliminating canonical and legal loopholes would compel bishops to embrace transparency and accountability, ultimately leading them to recognize and embody the true vulnerability inherent in their ministry.[27] Within the Indian Church, there is a growing scholarly and ecclesial consensus that meaningful reform of hierarchy should begin with episcopal accountability. Indian Women Theologians’ Forum (IWTF) has been a leading voice in this direction.
Moreover, caste discrimination, linguistic divides, and intra-clerical power struggles divert attention away from pastoral service, reinforcing systemic barriers to reform.[28] These entrenched divisions not only exacerbate clericalism but also impede the Church’s capacity to embody its mission of justice and compassion. This calls for the radical reform of the hierarchy. Lasting change requires shifting the focus from clericalism to hierarchicalism by dismantling episcopal structures that grant bishops unchecked privilege, as emphasized by reformers like Keenan and Scicluna.
James Keenan advocates for ethics of vulnerability as a means to counteract clericalism and hierarchicalism, thereby restoring trust within the institutional Church.[29] In this framework, vulnerability is not weakness but an openness and responsiveness to others—an essential human condition that enables individuals to “hear, encounter, receive, or recognize the other even to the point of being injured.” [30] Within ecclesial structures, accountability ensures that bishops remain vulnerable in this constructive sense, whereas impunity undermines it. Central to Keenan’s ethics of vulnerability is mercy, the foremost expression of divine vulnerability. Mercy, he argues, involves a willingness to “enter the chaos of the other” and is intrinsically linked to justice.[31] Rather than tempering justice, mercy propels it, compelling the Church to address the needs of the marginalized, including widows, orphans, and the poor.[32] Grounded in accountability and mercy, the ethics of vulnerability seeks to transform the Church’s leadership culture and foster genuine pastoral engagement. The urgent need for episcopal reform is exacerbated by the hierarchy’s resistance to synodality and its reliance on rigid hierarchical structures. Restoring trust in the Church requires bishops to embrace a synodal approach—listening not only to the Pope but also to the faithful as they collectively discern the guidance of the Spirit.
The Synod on Synodality also offers a path for ecclesial reform by fostering a Church that listens attentively to the Holy Spirit and prioritizes communal relationships over hierarchical structures. Scholars such as James Keenan, Seil Oh, and Rafael Luciani emphasize the need for a collegial model of synodality, rooted in theological discernment and baptismal dignity, where both clergy and laity share responsibility for the Church’s mission. Restoring social trust requires bishops to embrace servant leadership and a truly synodal approach, engaging the faithful in discerning the Spirit’s guidance and transforming the Church’s leadership culture.
In the Indian Church, where caste dynamics, political pressures, and institutional rigidity shape ecclesial structures, Keenan’s ethics of vulnerability and Synod on Synodality offer a necessary framework for transformation. His call for accountable and responsive leadership challenges entrenched clericalism, advocating for consultative synods, lay participation in decision-making, and financial transparency. Institutionalizing independent review boards, periodic audits, and synodal governance models would ensure episcopal accountability, fostering greater trust within the Church.
Conclusion
The erosion of social trust in India is a complex phenomenon driven by political polarization, populism, and social divisions. The Indian Church, with its significant social service presence and potential for transformation, is uniquely positioned to be a catalyst for restoring social trust in India. By embracing the principles of synodality and the ethics of vulnerability, the Church can model a leadership style that prioritizes accountability, transparency, and justice. This shift would not only address internal divisions and challenges but also enable the Church to play a central role in rebuilding trust in Indian society at large. As India navigates its complex socio-political landscape, the Church’s commitment to justice, mercy, and social cohesion can serve as a beacon of hope, fostering reconciliation and promoting a more inclusive, equitable, and trustworthy society.
—
[1] The Hindu, “India slips to 3rd place on trust barometer; low-income group less trusting than richer counterparts,” https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-slips-to-3rd-place-on-trust-barometer-low-income-group-less-trusting-than-richer-counterparts/article69118528.ece.
[2] K. Alan Kronstadt, “India: Religious Freedom Issues,” Congressional Research Service (November 2024), 1-51, at 11, https://crsreports.congress.gov.
[3] Francis Fukuyama, “The Thing That Determines a Country’s Resistance to the Coronavirus,” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/thing-determines-how-well-countries-respond-coronavirus/609025/.
[4] Carolyn, McLeod, “Trust,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/trust.
[5] Karen S. Cook and Oliver Schilke, “The Role of Public, Relational and Organizational Trust in Economic Affairs,” Corporate Reputation Review, 13 (2010): 98-109, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1804355.
[6] Karen S. Cook and Oliver Schilke, “The Role of Public, Relational and Organizational Trust in Economic Affairs, Corporate Reputation Review, 13 (2010): 98-109, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1804355.
[7] Dominik Latusek and Thomasz Olejniczak, “Development of Trust in Low-Trust Societies,” Polish Sociological Review Vol.3, no.195 (January 2016): 309-325, at 312.
[8] Dominik Latusek and Thomasz Olejniczak, “Development of Trust in Low-Trust Societies,” Polish Sociological Review, 312.
[9] Kevin Vallier and Michael Weber, “Introduction,” in Social Trust, ed. Kevin Vallier and Michael Weber (New York: Routledge, 2014),1.
[10] Francis Fukuyama, Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (New York: Free Press, 1995), 149-158.
[11] Nolan McCarty, Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) 20; Kevin Vallier, Trust in a Polarized Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 3.
[12] Kevin Vallier, Trust in a Polarized Age, 3.
[13] Kevin Vallier, Trust in a Polarized Age, 4.
[14] Kevin Vallier, Trust in a Polarized Age, 4
[15] Nolan McCarty, Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know, 20.
[16] Niranjan Sahoo, “Hindu Nationalism and Political Polarization in India,” in Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, ed. Thomas Carothers and Andrew O’Donohue (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2019): 93-125, at 93.
[17] Niranjan Sahoo, “Mounting Majoritarianism and Political Polarization in India,” in Political Polarization in South and Southeast Asia: Old Divisions, New Dangers, ed. Thomas Carothers and Andrew O’Donohue (India: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2022): 9-20, at 9.
[18] Niranjan Sahoo, “Mounting Majoritarianism and Political Polarization in India,” in Political Polarization in South and Southeast Asia: Old Divisions, New Dangers, 10.
[19] Niranjan Sahoo, “Hindu Nationalism and Political Polarization in India,” in Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, ed. Thomas Carothers and Andrew O’Donohue (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2019), 94; Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s (London: C. Hurst & Co., 1996).
[20] Sunil Khilnani, The Idea of India (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1998).
[21] Niranjan Sahoo, “Hindu Nationalism and Political Polarization in India,” in Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, 109.
[22] Sheikh Saaliq and Krutika Pathi, “India’s parliament has fewer Muslims as strength of Modi’s party grows,” https://apnews.com/article/india-general-elections-muslims-modi-c01281195f71a4c8b4bd53146695a0e5, accessed on 08.06.2024; Dhinakaran Savariyar, “Hindu Nationalism and Indian Christian Response!” The Journal of Social Encounters Vol. 6, no.1, (2022):17-31, at 24.
[23] Niranjan Sahoo, “Hindu Nationalism and Political Polarization in India,” in Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, 112.
[24] James Keenan, “Restoring Social Trust: From Populism to Synodality,” Theological Studies Vol 84, no.1 (2023): 110-133, at 127, https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639221150757.
[25] James Keenan, “Hierarchicalism,” Theological Studies Vol. 83, no.1 (2022): 84-108, at 94, https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639211070493.
[26] Timothy A Byrnes, „Catholic Bishops and Sexual Abuse: Power, Constraint, and Institutional Context,” Journal of Church and State, vol.62, no.2 (February 2020): 5-25, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csz086; Jaisey A. Joseph, “Responding to Shame with Solidarity: Sex Abuse Crisis in the Indian Catholic Church,” Asian Horizons Vol.14, no 2 (June 2020): 381-392.
[27] James Keenan, “Hierarchicalism,” Theological Studies Vol 83, no.1 (2022): 84-108, at 97, https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639211070493.
[28] Ivan Fernandes, “Not even the Church escapes India’s caste system,” https://www.ucanews.com/news/not-even-the-church-escapes-indias-caste-system/69231; Nirmala Carvalho, “Dalit priests protest caste-discrimination in Indian archdiocese,” https://cruxnow.com/church-in-asia/2020/12/dalit-priests-protest-caste-discrimination-in-indian-archdiocese.
[29] James Keenan, “Vulnerability and Hiearchicalism,” Melita Theologica: Journal of the Faculty of Theology University Malta, Vol.62, no.2 (2018):129-142, http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/3955348.
[30] James Keenan, Moral Life: Eight Lectures (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2023), 24.
[31] James Keenan, “Hierarchicalism,” Theological Studies Vol 83, no.1 (2022): 84-108, here 97, https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639211070493.
[32] James Keenan, “Hierarchicalism,” Theological Studies Vol 83, no.1 (2022): 84-108, here 97, https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639211070493.