Two questions

The pontiff criticised India for "disturbing signs of religious intolerance which have troubled some regions of India".

He specifically cited attempts by some Indian states to introduce legislation to ban what right-wing Hindus call "forced conversions".

India's foreign ministry has now reacted strongly to Monday's papal comments.

"India is a secular and democratic country, in which adherents of all religious faiths enjoy equal rights," said Junior Foreign Minister Anand Sharma.

Interference

Correspondents say that Mr Sharma made the comments in response to opposition criticism that India had not protested against the "grossly unwarranted" statement from Rome.

Rajnath Singh, the President of India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) wrote to the Pope on 20 May.

"My interference in your religious domain within the Vatican will be unwelcome, uncalled for and will be treated as interference in your religious management and administration," the letter said.

Earlier this month, the state governor of India's western state of Rajasthan refused to sign a contentious religious freedom bill, which would have banned people from being converted to religions "against their will".

Human rights agencies and minority groups also opposed the bill, saying it was introduced to appease radical Hindu groups.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My first question is on the following sentnece of the above.

Correspondents say that Mr Sharma made the comments in response to opposition criticism that India had not protested against the "grossly unwarranted" statement from Rome.

Is it necessary to say India had not protested?
This is a past perfect sentence. Could you simply write the simple past instead of the past perfect tense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second question is on the following sentence of the above.

My interference in your religious domain within the Vatican will be unwelcome, uncalled for and will be treated as interference in your religious management and administration," the letter said.

Is it a sensible sentence?

My interference in your religious domain/activites ......  This is fine.

For me the sentence is very awkward.

Here is my, a non-native speaker's, understanding of the problem.

«Correspondents say that Mr Sharma made the comments in response to opposition criticism that India had not protested against the "grossly unwarranted" statement from Rome.

Is it necessary to say India had not protested?»

Please, read it carefully.

Two actions:
First: India refuses to protest.
Second: Mr. Shrama makes the comments on the latter.

The second action took place after the first one.

Two additional examples which may help:

«He is in the university now» — said I.
But if someone was to retell my above words on the next day, he would say:
«Anton said that Peter was in the university at that time.» — Here the Simple Past is used, because when my words were being retelled, they no longer were actual.

«My car was made 18 years ago» — said I proudly.
A year later:
«Anton said that his car had been made 18 years ago.» — Past Perfect here indicates that it was correct one year ago, that the car was 18 years old. The use of Past Simple here would be incoerrect for sure, since the meaning would change.

Mr. Sharma probably said something like that:
«...India didn't protest...» — in Past Simple, because, by the moment of speech, India had missed the chance to protest: it was already too late too protest.

Thus, I think, Past Perfect above is necessary. If that sentence was in Past Simple, I would get it as though Mr. Shrama said: «...India does not protest...», that is, it still could change her (India's) mind and announce the protest, at the time Mr. Sharama gave his comments.