Jinnah, majority rule, and the "tyranny of the majority

BJP is in majority and that makes two things right:

A. the prediction about tyranny of majority.

B. Jinnah's statement that democracy cannot work where one group is permanently majority.

These are political theories, not logical deductions.

For example:

A legislature passes a law because it has enough votes.

That tells us

how the law was enacted.

It does not tell us

whether the law is constitutionally valid,

morally justified,

or historically correct.

Jinnah's concern (as I describe it) is about institutional design:

If one community is permanently outvoted, democracy may fail to protect minorities.

That is a political argument about constitutional arrangements.

It applies to India as one examines its institutions, constitutional protections, judicial independence, electoral rules, and political practice. It follows automatically from the existence of a numerical majority.