I’m inclined to agree this seems like a clear case where a ruler was forcing Buddhism as a religion on his people, though I do think it’s a bit different than the Crusades in terms of thinking about it as “violence spreading a religion” - it’s more like past violence resulted in a regime that then adopted Buddhism as a religion afterwards (an Ashoka’s case, largely in reaction to the violence of his conquests), so it feels different - but it’s still coercive and built on past violence (and the threat of possible future violence if not compliant), and that’s worth acknowledging.
I’m inclined to agree this seems like a clear case where a ruler was forcing Buddhism as a religion on his people, though I do think it’s a bit different than the Crusades in terms of thinking about it as “violence spreading a religion” - it’s more like past violence resulted in a regime that then adopted Buddhism as a religion afterwards (an Ashoka’s case, largely in reaction to the violence of his conquests), so it feels different - but it’s still coercive and built on past violence (and the threat of possible future violence if not compliant), and that’s worth acknowledging.