"

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! "