India’s position in this is unique. It has the largest Muslim minority population in the world (13.4% of the population, or about 150m) but unlike Muslims in western Europe, they are not immigrants.
They have been part of India for centuries.
This is why all Indians — Muslims and Hindu alike — know that the deepening divide threatens the country’s existence.
In what sense would there be a difference between India and a western European nation, under Islamist attack, with a 13.4% Muslim population which had been there for thirty or forty years ? In what sense would the country's existence not be threatened in Europe ?
Is he saying that India as a concept, an idea of nationhood, is intrinsically a Hindu/Muslim/Sikh/Jain/whatever mixture - and that any change to that idea is a threat to the existence of the idea ? And is he saying that that ISN'T the case in Europe ?
If so, he doesn't seem to have grasped what's going on here. The 'nation of immigrants' may be a politically correct fiction, but it's the official narrative.
But either way, I'm not sure how much difference it makes to the practicalities of coping with terror - in India or Europe.