EDIT: Looks like the comment in question was about India being better off under the British. Which probably deserves deletion. Leaving my comment for posterity but nothing to worry about here.
I'm sorry, but I feel like the comment from OP does have a place in this discussion, given the context of the article. I agree it could have been worded in better ways, but an argument that India's bureaucracy is corrupt is not a groundless insult nor completely irrelevant to the article here. I'm not sure how closely you follow Indian politics but I'd refer you to the last national election and the emergence of the Aam Admi Party, both driven in large part by popular frustration at pervasive bureaucratic corruption (eg how telecom spectrum was awarded by the previous administration). In fact, it'd be hard to argue that India's bureaucracy doesn't have a history of bribery to some degree, especially in cases when it comes to regulators and companies.
Again, I think OP could have done a better job phrasing his point, perhaps pointing out how regulation unfavorable to Apple actually might point to less tolerance of corruption at high levels. But I think simply censoring dicscussion of corruption as nationalistic grandstanding is heavy-handed. In other contexts, making comments about political lobbying in the US as corruption would not be considered nationalistic. I don't see why it should be here either.