who elected the government?

patriarchal.
thats the relationship most governments in india share with corporate india.

consider:
1.the prime minister wants ceo pay packets to be reined in to control growing social inequities.
2.state governments have no qualms compulsarily acquiring land for large corporations under the guise of "public purpose". (making farmers landless doesn't add to social inequity of course.)

theres a strange dichotomy here.
big daddy government will have the private sector grow, even help it along at the cost of other interest groups, but will tug at the reins any chance it gets. patriarchy. i'm the boss.

social inequity must be contained by curbing conspicuous expenditure by those who prosper. that way those who dont prosper will feel the pinch a little less. sure. but what abt the the government's role in the upliftment the have-nots?
PRIMARY EDUCATION.
EMPLOYMENT.
RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
or can these be denied a little bit longer by having the rich be a little more discreet about how rich they really are? by keeping their wealth a neat little tax department secret...

and on the other hand is big daddy's active complicity in bullying farmers. multiple state governments shamelessly force farmers to sell their fertile lands to make way for corporations and economic zones. why cant we have these corporations set up shop on arid wastelands? why are we after the prime-soiled property? would it not be better for everyone? wasteland economies and infrastructure are in desperate need of help anyway. it would cost companies more but would it not be better for the country?

and besides, who elected the government? the corporations? doesn't it matter how local populations feel about acquisition by governments? why is their voice being silenced?
my guess is its just a matter of time before the unsettled populations are many enough to have themselves heard in an election.
its a political process.

until then, listen to the PM and hide the big bucks a little better guys.
try and fool the electorate.