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.”