South Asia, reveal indigenous development of Southeast Asian society even before the beginning of the Common Era. Consequently now, most scholars are satisfied with the discovery of the process of autonomous development before the 4th century. They, therefore, without hesitation, tend to regard the period after the 4th century as the period of ‘Indianisation’ when advanced states were formed on the basis of an Indian model under the influence of Buddhism or Hinduism.Another development was the ‘Convergence theory’ put forward by H. Kulke toward the end of the last century. According to him, a similar process in early state formation was seen on both sides of the Bay of Bengal, namely the eastern coast of Indian Peninsula (East and South India) and Southeast Asia during the first half of the first millennium. Kulke suggests that the ‘social nearness’ between the two areas brought a certain ‘convergence’ in the state formation.Recent archaeological discoveries in various sites as well as the theory of convergence as put forward by Kulke have greatly advanced the study of ancient and early medieval history of Southeast Asia. While we discussed these topics in the symposium, we also wanted to discuss another point on this occasion, and that is the meaning of ‘Indianisation’ itself. As stated earlier, most scholars on the indigenist side distinguish the early process of state formation from that achieved later in the 5th century and after. They regard the latter process as ‘Indianised’ state formation. We, however, wonder whether the states established in Southeast Asia under the influence of the culture of India can be regarded as ‘Indianised’ states. Of course, it is possible to perceive Indian influences, but did these states have the same socio-political features as the states that were formed in East and South India during the same period? As far as Kulke limits his discussion to the ‘process’ of state formation, his ‘convergence theory’ is fully acceptable, but it does not necessarily follow that the states that formed on either side of the Bengal Bay had the same socio-political features to allow us to call the Southeast Asian states ‘Indianised states’.For this reason, comparative studies are necessary to re-examine the appropriateness of the concept of ‘Indianisation’ of Southeast Asia. So far, scholars have paid attention only to the similarity of the state and society between Southeast Asia and South Asia, but there are also differences between them that need to be noted. For example, though we find Brahmin participation in state governance in both regions, there appear to be differences in the role they played in the two regions.For the purpose of comparison we invited R. Gurukkal and R. Champakalakshmi from India and P. Manguin and Kulke from Europe. Together with Japanese specialists we discussed the development of state from chiefdom to regional, and finally to centralised state. In this process, ideology such as bhakti and caste (varna) system appears to have had utmost importance in South Asia. However, their non-implantation in Southeast Asia, as also an ecological difference between the two regions, seem to have caused a difference in state formation and social integration in the two regions. We discussed all of these points. The reason for taking up, in this symposium, the so-called ‘Islamicisation’ of South and Southeast Asia during the medieval period is as follows. In South Asia during the period from the 14th to the 17th century the Vijayanagar state flourished in the south ruling a large area. The kings of this state followed Hinduism although they were coordinator: Prof. HIROSUE Masashi050MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5