I guess it depends on the interpretation of "some", but it only broadly says what he did (mostly keeping the market shielded off from international influences it seems, not quite what other countries should emulate - imagine what would happen if T-bonds weren't available to international buyers, or if Americans couldn't freely invest world-wide). It has no details on the economic landscape in India (for example, I have no idea about the housing market there) and it certainly doesn't address the question what effect a looser regime would have had in the light of the economic issues of 2008/09.

Now it's an NYT article, on the guy itself and not so much on the economic issues, so for the article, it's fine. But the claim that India was shielded from more economic woes because of this guy is a claim that cannot be backed up with just what is in this article.