A good many of once privileged people are bound to resent loss of the said privilege, if the privilege was dependent on grace of power of rulers rather than due to any intrinsic worth in the privileged. It is no different from a person of wealth losing all wealth, if the said wealth was given by someone else and the person cannot earn that back again, or someone in position of power without having earned it.
That explains the resentment of power of majority, for if the majority did rule in a democracy, the privileged minorities held up in positions of power and prestige in a bygone era of centuries of rule of minorities stand to lose all the privileges they held by merely being minority.
And that is even without any negative dealing with them, which they know aswell as anyone else they expect in lands across borders on every side f India. Even those that left at partition have migrated back albeit not openly and so have a number that were never here albeit illegally, for reasons of economic gain and a better life for themselves and their future generations. So the indigenous minorities are unlikely to leave for reasons of fear of majority or negative behaviour, because unless one has secured future in a rich western nation there is nowhere else togo for a better life - and often even compared with a rich western nation life is better in India. Where else would one have freedom of culture and not expect to have a headwear removed in public, not by a mob but by law?
If one wishes to see roots of such apprehensions as expressed by this speaker we are commenting on, try Not My Cup Of Tea. There the author is quite explicit about staying out of the mainstream and his alienation. Or one can imagine how the major minority felt at loss of power of Mughals at hands of British and never regaining it when they left.
So the shallow accusations against the majority which really are rants of a bunch of kids who fear the mom is going to be in charge rather than the bunch of kids who would love to wreak havoc.
Buddhism is not huge only because it is not held separate any more than Jain or even Sikh - they can be as separate as they like, or join the mainstream, as far as majority goes, including worship in temples.
Besides,why this hankering after being huge in numbers? Do large numbers prove superiority? Are drunken drivers superior to nobel prize winning scientists, because there are only a few of the latter and huge number of former?
As someone pointed out, in India it was settled with debates and one could always debate again, not with swords or death, and people finding their way back from sheen of Buddha's message of peace only in nirvana to India's more living reality of Divine was not done by anyone attacking. Or for that matter even by debates as far as masses go.
People are not idiots, and to answer someone who elsewhere points fingers at majority by saying godmen are proliferating due to majority, has he tried? People won't be fooled, and will flock only if there is something - unlike in faiths where messages supposedly from above are enforced with "convert or die now" campaigns, or even by temptations of various kinds.
Example, during famines a century or more ago churches offered rice to poor of China if they converted; they did, several times a day in different churches, and laughed about it.
