The notion of a majority is itself forced. On what basis is the majority/minority distinction made? If by ethnicity (itself a construction of belonging), perhaps one group would be a majority and another a minority; if by class the ethnic minority might very well be part of the majority. I'm not sure that Benedict Anderson goes as far as this, but I think this is where one would arrive if one took him seriously.

To the degree that we can accept the premise of the question, then I think Vinita is right. In some cases one might go as far as to say that it is a kind of internal colonialism.

Many of the inclusion policies actually had reverse results for members of communities in different contexts like UK and US. In some contexts they resulted into exclusion of the majority groups, because there is too much focus on the role and inclusion of the minorities and then the majority groups felt that they are not being valued enough, and their role in society is being faded away. 

What is being missed in many policies and plans is the need for interrelation and reciprocity between different groups in achieving 'inclusion'. Though many of the times concrete boundaries been drawn for communities; they should be identified as minority or majority, native or immigrant, included or excluded and so on. But in reality we can see that the boundaries between groups in every society is so overlapping and fuzzy. People might be members of different community or identity groups. They may move in between them and do not belong themselves fully to this one or that. Considering this fact, then policies and plans put minority (or even majority) groups into trouble. Because they force the idea that there are some people who are different, who are 'others', who are from different cultures, etc. This forceful production of fixed groups, boundaries and meanings , I believe results into expansion of gaps between different groups in a society and then results into production of problems for both minority and majority groups. This problems might be mundane daily life conflicts or greater social, cultural or political problems in national scale.

Thanks to all for their comments. My primary concern behind questioning inclusion is to shed light on the perverse ways it could be used for maintaining hierarchy. The best example is of caste system wherein inclusion is eternal and fatal. No one can be excluded from it. Scholars wrongly identify it as exclusionary. Rather it is pervasively inclusive. Colonial inclusion of indigenous people is another example. Sometimes it is important to get out of the system, than to be included in it.