Majoritarianism is defined as that form of legitimate political authority which expresses the will of the majority. In a democracy governed by a constitution, the document typically prescribes the manner of expression of majoritarian will, and also circumscribes its limits. In other words, expression of the will of the majority within constitutional limits is constitutional. To what extent can the majority alter the very constitution itself and to what extent can such an exercise be interfered with by an unelected yet constitutional organ such as the judiciary is a topic for another day. For now, I will limit the scope of the discussion to the contemporary casual and pejorative use of “majoritarianism” in Bharat as a catch-all term to gaslight Hindus.
First, to cry “majoritarianism” in a democracy, without making out a case of unconstitutionality, is to question the majority principle which forms the very basis of a democracy. Second, in the context of Bharat, “majoritarianism” has become a code to insinuate “Hindu majoritarianism” because obviously Hindus commit the continuing sin of existing and that too in a (dwindling) numerical majority despite the best intentions and endeavours of organised, monotheistic, iconoclastic, expansionist, and colonising worldviews. Therefore, to atone for that sin, Hindus must constantly and unequivocally express contrition through cession of cultural, political, constitutional, and ultimately physical spaces. By not doing so, Hindus endanger the sense of safety and dignity of certain groups which pass off as “national minorities” despite being in the majority in certain states where Hindus are in the minority.
Yukti 