All over the world, if you want to oppose something, then all you have to prove is that the rich will benefit out of it. To actually make a plausible case you have to prove that the rich will benefit at the expense of the poor, but in practice this is not required because everyone implicitly assumes that if the rich benefit, it must be at the expense of the poor.

So now in Bombay there is a proposal to improve road conditions, so that traffic moves faster. We hear the usual criticism that better roads benefit the rich because they travel in cars, while the poor travel in local train?.

Even if this were true, what would happen if Bombay got a superefficient rail network and a screwed-up road network? Ultimately people have to get off the trains to go home. If the roads are bad, people will want to stay close to the railway station. This will push up prices of houses close to stations, ensuring that only the rich can afford those houses.

As a general rule, if you ever find a measure explicitly enacted to benefit the poor, you will find that it is the rich who benefit.