भारतीय इतिहास के ६ स्वर्णिम पृष्ठ (वीर सावरकर - विदेशी आक्रान्ताओं पर विजय गाथा)

decree enforcing any performances of sacrifices in the Buddha Viharas or
the worship of Vaishvadeva in every Buddh household, even as a fitting
retort to Ashoka’s junctions. The Buddhists were as absolutely free as all
other religious sects, to perform their religious rites and enjoy religious
freedom, so long as they abstained from any anti-national foreign contact. It
is likely that in the troubled times of national war, the chastisement of the
disloyal Buddhists might have affected some of the innocent ones. But it
was not a rule—but an inevitable exception!
207. What Pushyamitra really did was to reinstate the religious freedom,
which was annulled by Ashoka. If anybody is to be called intolerant of
religious difference, it should be Ashoka and not Pushyamitra.
208. In this context, the words of Vincent Smith, who shows no particular
partiality for the Vedic Hindus, and yet writes judiciously, are worth
remembering.
209. However, Vincent Smith, too, like other historians, has not realized
that the main reason of the general animosity that the Vedic Hindus feel
towards the Buddhists, and the persecutions that the latter suffered at their
hands from time-to-time, culminating in the total annihilation of Buddhism
in India, is that the Buddhists, often times betrayed the cause of Indian
independence and Indian empire. In spite of the fact that Vincent Smith
never realized this main reason of the downfall of Buddhism, he has held
the Buddhists responsible for the religious persecution mentioned in various
Buddhist writings. An extract from his Early History of India (1924) (P.
213-14) will bear out the above remarks:
209A. “The memorable horse-sacrifice of Pushyamitra marked the
beginning of Brahmanical (Vedic?) reaction which was fully developed by
centuries later in the time of Samudragupta and his successors... if credit
may be given to semi-mythological stories of Buddhist writers, Pushyamitra
was not content with the peaceful revival of Hindu rites, but indulged in a
savage persecution of Buddhism.... it will be rash to reject this tale as
wholly baseless, although it may be exaggerated.... That such outbursts after
all should have occurred is not wonderful, if you consider the extreme
oppressiveness of the Jain and Buddhist prohibition, when ruthlessly
enforced, as they certainly were by some Rajas and probably by Ashoka.
The wonder rather is that the persecutions were so rare, and that as a rule,
the various sects managed to live together in harmony and in the enjoyment
of fairly impartial official favour.”