OP delivered. I'm not a Wikipedia editor so I don't know what kind of sources are allowed, but just on a gut-feel, that worldbank.org source seems okay?
Its very unlikely he was blocked for the specific sources he used. More likely he was banned for his conduct in a debate, potentially about those sources. Its generally very hard to be banned for "being wrong" on Wikipedia, usually people are banned for how they interact with other people, which can happen both to people who are "right" as well as people who are "wrong" (being in the right is not a valid reason to be an asshole as the saying goes). For example if he engaged in an edit war about these sources, that would still be enough to blocked even if he was correct because edit wars are an inapropriate way to handle disputes.
Its also possible the sources might have been fine but OP's interpretation of them was not. For example if he was using them to support something they didn't say or drawing his own conclusions from them beyond what the text of the source says.
This is all speculation of course. If OP provided his username we would be able to see for sure as it would be a matter of public record.
For reference both of the urls OP cites are currently used on Wikipedia. The first in the article economy of India, the second on the article for Jal Jeevan Mission, so at least in modern times Wikipedia is ok with those sources
He didn't deliver. He should just link to the actual revisions that were reverted. The fact he refuses to is telling.
He was definitely not banned as a result of his story, he definitely did something egregious (such as repeatedly insulting people on talk pages or repeated vandalism) or was editing without an account and he is portraying a typical residential IP block ban as him being banned for "wrong think". It is purely dishonest.
