No I don t see the flaw in the argument and it s not a sweeping statement I only see that Wikipedia has a policy to use reliable sources and that Rajiv Malhotra is far from being a reliable source Not only because he s polemicist which means that he s got a disregard for differing opinions but basically because his presentation of the facts is incorrect And that s because he s not aiming to give a neutral or scholarly overview but to give a specific understanding of India in which there is ample room for differences within India He s got a political agenda and that s what makes him an unreliable source Best regards Let s talk