I understood exactly what you meant, no further clarification is needed. Take the parent comment with a grain of salt, it is clearly biased as Kerala might as well be a different country with its unique, southernmost coastal-climate inspired cuisine and dishes not seen in other parts of diverse India.
FWIW, I understood exactly what you meant on first reading.
Now to be clear, India has no such dish as a curry.
The wording "no such dish as a curry" is a little ambiguous here as to if you mean a single menu item called "curry" or items from the genre of curry. This might be were people are tripping up. However, you make yourself crystal clear with the following sentences:
No self-respecting Indian restaurant has a "curry" on their menu. They would have a Palak Paneer or a Malai Kofta or a Murgh Makhani - all of which we lump into "curry" - but no "curry".
If someone is saying you failed at making this point, I'm not sure they read the whole paragraph, or are just willfully ignoring the context and are looking for an argument.
I don't agree that this point is crystal clear. If they'd written "They would have a Palak Paneer, or a Moru Curry, or...." and at least included one dish with "curry" in the name, then there would've been no such confusion. But as it stands it sounds to me like it's claiming there is no actual Indian dish that contains the word "curry".