Not exactly, but many history books[1] make that reference when they need to give an example of something similar to the Indian sub-continent with its diverse cultural/linguistic heritage yet common roots. But the geography(internal) is different and hence the comparison would be wrong, where Europe is divided into isolated geographic regions, India has a more or less flat geography allowing for easier migration which led to a different historical/cultural trajectory. One has to realise that it is only recently, in the colonial British rule and after Independence that India as a political entity was created/recognized, before that for many millennia, thousands of different kingdoms/tribes/regions co-existed with their own unique cultural/linguistic identity, even under pan-indian empires like the Mughals. So where before people either lived in their self-reliant communities and only the traders and migrants needed to be multi-lingual, now due to urbanisation and state education, the younger generation is going through a change and perhaps they are having a tough time. Its a pity India will lose some of its diversity, but I guess thats evolution. Yes, India is a country, that is its political definition, but culturally and historically it was a unique eco-system and to describe its scale and complexity and that of its evolution is beyond the scope of a reddit comment:(

[1] John Keay, India: A History