One answer to this is that it is never the majority that decides policies, programmes or directions. They may ratify it with their approval and support, but the formulation has to be done, necessarily, by those who are willing to put time and effort into such esoterics, and such people are precisely those whom yoiu have pointed to.
The second part is about the bickering within this less-than-demotic group. That represents not a vertical quarrel, but a horizontal one: it is a clash of ideologies, perhaps even of theologies. At one level, those who believe in religion as a prime identifier vs. those who believe that it is something else; at another level, those who believe in the state at any cost vs. those who believe that even in matters of state and of international relations, there is a higher morality. A third divide opens up between those who seek military solutions in everything, and those who are essentially, not morally, but practically, pacifists. How can we avoid those? In those discussions, we will inevitably face others with a different point of view, and in such situations, those who believe in freedom of speech are always at a disadvantage: the others don't have to worry!
I believe that each of us has to battle our own lunatics. It is the jihad of warring against one's own worse impulses, before going on to challenge the imperfections or impieties of others. It is only victory in this that will bring a generous and workable, in the sense, sustainable solution to the sub-continent.
