On August 13-14, 2025, the Korea Centre at Mahatma Gandhi University, in collaboration with UniKorea Foundation, Republic of Korea and Academy of Korean Studies, organised a two-day Young Scholars’ Workshop on “Reimagining Korean Unification in a Transforming World: Perspectives from India”. The workshop brought together a dynamic group of young researchers, postgraduates, and Ph.D. scholars from various parts of India to discuss the issue of Korean Unification, inter-Korean relations and peace in the Korean Peninsula from an Indian perspective.
Dr Jojin V. John, Assistant Professor and Honorary Director of the Korea Centre, opened the workshop by stating that the core mission’s objective has not been to rehash traditional unification debates, but to conduct a fresh examination grounded in today’s realities and informed by India’s unique vantage point. He emphasised the importance of reevaluating Korean unification within the evolving geopolitical landscape of the Indo-Pacific region. Although the push for unification has diminished in urgency over time, the desire for Korean unity remains a powerful force in the national psyche—making it a nuanced issue best approached through creative, comparative, and cross-disciplinary inquiry.
Day 1: Reimagining and Reframing Korean Unification
The first day of the workshop opened with the session “Reimagining Korean Unification,” chaired by Dr. (Col.) Divakaran Padma Kumar Pillay (Retd.), Research Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA). The discussion brought forward diverse scholarly reflections that questioned and expanded the meaning of unification in contemporary times. Torunika Roy, a PhD scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, initiated the session with her paper “Rethinking Unification in the Age of Demographic Decline.” She illuminated how South Korea’s shrinking population and aging society could significantly alter the economic and social feasibility of integration, urging participants to consider unification through the lens of human resources and demographic sustainability. Following this, Aman Tripathi, a postgraduate student at JNU, presented “Memory, Trauma, and Reconciliation: The Role of Korean Cinema in Shaping Collective Memory.” Drawing from famous Korean films, he illustrated how cinema functions as both a mirror and a mediator, reflecting the pain of division while nurturing a collective longing for reconciliation. His reflections highlighted that the path to unification also runs through the cultural imagination of the Korean people. Allen David Simon from St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata, concluded the session with his presentation on “Confucian Convergence: Socio-political and Diplomatic Utility of Confucianism in Korean Unification.” He emphasized that the Confucian values of harmony, respect, and moral responsibility could provide an ethical framework for a post-unification Korea, where dialogue and mutual understanding replace hostility and suspicion.
The second session, “Korean Unification — International Dimensions,” chaired by Dr. Jojin V. John, Director of the Korea Centre, focused on the geopolitical and comparative frameworks influencing the Korean unification. Gagan Hitkari, a PhD scholar at the University of Delhi, analyzed North Korea’s evolving rhetoric through his paper “Reframing Reunification: North Korea’s Unification Policy Shift and the Future of Inter-Korean Relations.” Drawing upon a Constructivist framework and employing discourse analysis, Gagan’s paper traced how official North Korean rhetoric has reframed unification not as a national priority but as a threat to regime survival. He demonstrated how this shift signals Pyongyang’s growing alignment with China and Russia while simultaneously redefining South Korea as an ideological adversary. His analysis shed light on the deepening security polarization on the Korean Peninsula, offering a sobering assessment of the prospects for peace and reconciliation. Priyanka Yadav, a doctoral candidate at JNU, extended the discussion to great-power politics through her work “The Alliance of North Korea–Russia Relations and the Future of Korean Unification.” She analyzed how Russia’s increasing dependence on North Korea for arms and ammunition, amid Western sanctions has opened new avenues of military cooperation and ideological alignment between the two states. This alliance, she argued, is not merely a matter of convenience but a symptom of deepening Cold War–style polarization in the Indo-Pacific. Through a nuanced reading of recent summits and defense exchanges, she illustrated how this newfound proximity empowers North Korea diplomatically, enhancing its nuclear leverage while further isolating it from inter-Korean dialogue Prakash Mali, also from JNU, presented “The Role of International Actors in German and Korean Unification,” drawing striking parallels between Germany’s historical experience and Korea’s divided reality. Through a meticulous comparative case study approach, he traced how diplomatic negotiations, international consensus, and interparty legitimacy paved the way for Germany’s peaceful reintegration in 1990, while the Korean Peninsula remains locked in ideological and geopolitical tension. Drawing from diplomatic records and historical analyses, he argued that while German unification was facilitated by coordinated action among major powers (the United States, the Soviet Union, and European allies) the Korean question has been hindered by persistent strategic rivalries among the U.S., China, and Russia, as well as by the nuclearization of North Korea. He underscored that the Korean Peninsula’s future will continue to be shaped by the competing priorities of great powers, making consensus-building a far more complex task than in the German experience. Baljeet Kumar Singh, PhD scholar at JNU, shared his insights on “Ideological and Cultural Integration: Lessons from Germany and Vietnam for Korea.” He drew upon the experiences of Germany (1990) and Vietnam (1976) to extract valuable lessons for a future unified Korea. He explained how Germany’s reunification, built on democratic assimilation and soft diplomacy, relied heavily on media reform, educational integration, and the reconstruction of shared memory to bridge economic and cultural divides. In contrast, Vietnam’s model, emerging from a militarized victory, emphasized centralized control and gradual economic liberalization to achieve unity, eventually blending socialist ideology with pragmatic openness. By comparing these two trajectories, Baljeet argued that Korea’s path to unification would need a hybrid model, one that respects cultural and ideological differences while fostering shared national values and institutional trust. His discussion emphasized that the success of unification depends not merely on political negotiation but on the re-socialization of citizens and the cultivation of mutual empathy between North and South.
The second day of the workshop opened with inspiring words by Dr. (Col.) Divakaran Padma Kumar Pillay (Retd.), Research Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA). Drawing upon his extensive military and diplomatic career, Dr. Pillay revisited India’s role in the Korean War and the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission, reflecting on how India’s commitment to peace and neutrality could once again position it as a mediator in future Korean peace initiatives. His talk provided an insightful historical and strategic grounding for the day’s discussions on India’s place within the unification discourse.
The fourth session of the workshop, “Korean Unification — Role of India,” chaired by Dr Pillay, focused on India’s role in the Korean Peninsula, in particular, the question of unification. Shivani Singh Chhaunkar, a postgraduate student from Jamia Millia Islamia, presented her paper “Bridging the 38th Parallel: India’s Diplomatic Role in the Unification of Korea,” her presentation traced the longstanding connection between India and Korea, beginning nearly two millennia ago with the ancient legends of Princess Suriratna, and later manifesting in India’s pivotal diplomatic involvement during the Korean War. Shivani revisited India’s peacebuilding efforts under the leadership of K.P.S. Menon, who, as the first chairman of the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea (UNTCOK), had famously asserted that “in our eyes, Korea is one and indivisible.” Her analysis underscored how India’s neutrality and moral leadership during the 1950–1953 conflict positioned it as a credible mediator between the two Koreas. She highlighted that this spirit of impartial diplomacy continues to echo in India’s Act East Policy, which has deepened economic and cultural engagement with the Republic of Korea while maintaining humanitarian outreach toward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. She explores how India’s legacy of non-alignment and commitment to peaceful coexistence could contribute meaningfully to dialogue and reconciliation in Northeast Asia. Soumya J. M., a law student at Christ University, followed with “Architectures of Korean Unification: India’s Role in the Legal-Economic Reconstruction of a Unified Korea.” She explored the intricate intersection of international law, economic integration, and transitional justice, asking crucial questions about how divergent legal and economic systems might be reconciled after decades of separation. Drawing upon comparative analyses of German and Vietnamese reunification models, she demonstrated how both countries faced immense obstacles in harmonising market and planned economies, aligning labour and property laws, and reconstructing infrastructure challenges that Korea, too, will inevitably face. Her argument positioned India as a potential legal and technical partner in this transformative process. She pointed out that India’s experiences in institutional design, federal governance, and economic development could serve as models for rebuilding and harmonizing a post-unification Korean state. Finally, Gourilakshmi S., Project Fellow at the Korea Centre, MGU, presented “Beyond Sunshine: Revisiting Korean Unification Efforts in a Multipolar World — An Indian Lens.” Her paper critically unpacked the cyclical failures of past unification efforts, revealing how political volatility in Seoul, regime insecurity in Pyongyang, and competing great-power influences have repeatedly disrupted progress toward peace. She argued that despite moments of symbolic reconciliation and economic engagement, structural mistrust continues to impede any sustainable roadmap for integration. In situating this analysis within a multipolar world order, her paper moved beyond the traditional binaries of appeasement versus coercion, urging that the Korean unification discourse must now adapt to new global realities shaped by U.S.–China rivalry and regional power recalibrations. From an Indian perspective, she proposed that India’s tradition of strategic neutrality and developmental diplomacy could provide fresh insights into peacebuilding and post-unification cooperation.
The final session featured a roundtable discussion led by Prof. Ma Sang Yoon, who examined how the discourse on unification has evolved, particularly within South Korea, and underscored the importance of keeping up with these developments in India to play a potential role in the future.
Key Takeaways
-
Korean unification must consider demographic realities, cultural imagination, and ethical frameworks alongside political negotiations.
-
Cinema, collective memory, and Confucian values highlight the importance of cultural and moral dimensions in fostering reconciliation.
-
Global and regional power dynamics, including North Korea’s strategic alignments, make consensus-building complex and necessitate learning from historical unification models like Germany and Vietnam.
-
India’s historical neutrality, diplomatic engagement, and expertise in legal-economic integration position it as a potential mediator and partner in future Korean peace and unification efforts.
-
Successful unification will require not only political agreements but also social restructuring, mutual empathy, and institution-building to bridge ideological and cultural divides.
Conclusion
Over the course of two days of rich dialogue, the Young Scholars’ Workshop successfully brought together diverse perspectives on Korean unification. From demographic anxieties and cinematic memories to philosophical ethics and international diplomacy. The discussions reflected that unification, though deeply rooted in Korean culture, remains a global question shaped by transnational forces and shared human aspirations.
For the Korea Centre at Mahatma Gandhi University, this workshop marked another significant step in nurturing young voices in Korean Studies in India and fostering academic diplomacy between India and Korea. As the conversations concluded, one message resonated clearly: “reimagining Korean unification today is as much about empathy, collaboration, and cultural understanding as it is about politics and power”.