Dharmic people (term used by you) is different than Dharmic religion. Only the extreme fundamentalist would argue that religion is the ONLY identity a human has.
It would be onerous to put the burden of proof on you to explain how religious mumbo-jumbo is supposed to protect a nation in the 21st century. So let me just articulate your views so as to remove the haze that surrounds them - you believe that the way forward for any country is to embrace its majoritarian religious identity as the means to protect its "interests". I assume this religious identity will magically confer upon us the education, technology and institutions that other countries need to safeguard their nations. That is entirely plausible, considering the magical truth claims that religion makes.
People forgetting about religion is the only hope for preventing inevitable strife. The demographics of Muslim population are such that before socio-economic progress and education kick in, their numbers would have already grown to an extent that the majority status of Hinduism will be only on paper. It is inevitable. So it would be best if identities were handled in a less adversarial manner.
Muslims cannot reproduce forever. As population increases the competition for resources will intensify. Hindus will unify to fight Muslims. It did happen in the past because lack of political awareness. If Indian populace of 2016 was political aware to the same degree in 1946 they would have expelled all Indian Muslims or waged a war to destroy Pakistan in 1947. I expect the political awareness to increase. Having voted for the Muslim League in 1946 Indian Muslims have a big target on them.
The only real hope is that India faces an existential crisis like a threat from hyper powerful China or climate change. People decide to unify to meet the threat