Inter-Asia Research Networkstolerant of other religions. Despite this, past historiography reveals that certain ardent Hindu scholars praised the state for having defended South India from the attack and spread of Islam by fighting against the sultanates to the north. P. B. Wagoner, however, expresses strong opposition to this religiously biased understanding.According to him the kings of this state were, though followers of Hinduism, fully aware of the spread of Islam and Islamicate culture and their importance in the outside wider area. They differentiated Islamicate culture from Islamic religion as can be seen in their using the title ‘hinduraja surataran.a’ (sultan among the Hindu kings) for themselves. Wagoner argues that the Vijayanagar kings sought legitimation of their rule from the Delhi sultan who defeated many South Indian kings. In recent studies on medieval Deccan history Wagoner proposes the concept of a ‘Persian cosmopolis’, borrowing the idea from Sheldon Pollock’s ‘Sanskrit cosmopolis’ to understand their interactions in the Deccan. We wanted to discuss this interaction.Sunil Kumar has been studying the rule of the Delhi sultans and the society under their rule in the northern part of the subcontinent from the 13th to the 16th century. It is well known that Sufism played an important role in the spread of Islam and establishment of Muslim rule in North India. According to him, however, past historical studies of the Delhi sultanate period were flawed as it treated Sufism only synchronically and monolithically. Instead, he suggests that we should study the role of Sufism diachronically paying attention to the change in the relation Sufi shaikhs had with political elites including the sultan. According to Kumar a study of this change or transition enables us to understand better, the reason for, and process of, the people’s acceptance of Muslim rule during the period from the 13th to the 16th century.These two aspects studied by Wagoner and Kumar are somewhat different from and independent of each other, but if we look at them together, we understand better the spread of Islam and establishment of Muslim rule in South Asia in general. This in turn should urge us to examine the situation in Southeast Asia, where Islamic states emerged in the 13th century. Since then Islamic religion and Islamicate culture have been playing a very important role in Southeast Asia too. That is the reason we also took up the topic of ‘Islamicisation’ in this symposium by inviting Wagoner from U.S. and Kumar from India.Papers, Comments and DiscussionsOn the first day intensive discussions followed the comments by A. Tanabe on the four reports delivered in Session 1 concerning ‘Islamicisation’. Similarly nine reports in relation to the so-called ‘Indianisation’ of Southeast Asia in Session 2 and 3 were followed by comments by H. Kulke and further concentrated discussions on the second day. For details of the reports and comments, please see the abstracts of papers and commentator’s reports included in this web report.The difference between South and Southeast Asia was stressed upon even on the first day of the symposium in a comment by Tanabe and also in the discussions. Tanabe emphasized two points, one, ecology and the other, the way of integration; while in South Asia sedentary agriculture and social integration by caste system were prevalent, in Southeast Asia there were ecological difference between coastal and inland areas in some parts and there existed many different ethnic groups that were not integrated or were loosely integrated as a whole. These conditions were responsible for the differences in state formation and social integration between the two regions in pre-modern period. Though a variety of topics was discussed over the two days, we may group them roughly under the following four heads: 1) early state formation, from chiefdom to state, 2) the role played by ideology and caste (varna) system in the later state formation, 3) Mandala state theory and samanta system, and 4) Sufis, sultans and 051