Folk statistics doesn't work the way you describe it. I know it's frustrating to watch, but it simply is that way.
And had this article been nuanced about that (as many earlier articles and posts on this topic have been in the past), it would have been okay.
Instead it reduces it to some kind of peculiar Indian trait ("The Indian and his insatiable...") while painting the second most populous country in the world with the widest of brushes ("Indians just can’t deal with the fact that someone without pedigree can get somewhere in life").
My statistics weren't meant to prove the opposite, that India is somehow very startup/failure friendly (it isn't, not by a long shot), but to only disprove the author's sweeping claim that the lack of a pedigree is some unsurmountable obstacle to succeed in India.
Sure the average VC or bank manager or prospective in-law might value an education over none (assuming ceteris paribus), but let's not use that to completely devalue the importance of a formal college education totally.
Is all.
Large, densely populated areas tend to be more culturally homogenous than smaller, more spread-out ones. So the idea isn't totally outlandish.
I didn't get that from reading the OP's article at all. I heard him saying that the lack of a pedigree is perceived by people in India as an insurmountable obstacle. You may disagree with that. Personally, I have no idea. But there's a difference between what you're accusing him of saying and what he actually said.