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