There is always another side to any story. When people claim that India's robust growth has uplifted millions of people from poverty, there are always others who claim that the abject poverty of the masses has not changed much. I think both these statements are true. If we put things in proper perspective, then may be it might become a little clearer. Just to see my point, millions in india being lifted out of poverty does not mean anything to a country with a polulations over a billion. As a percentage is it small but in actual number probably higher than certain nations. Is it true that liberalization has brought benefits only to the rich. Yes and no. Yes because, they are the ones largely who have got benefited. So, why do I say no also. The poor in india are poor not because of liberalization (or conversely absence of it????). The reasons for their poverty are political, geographical, cultural and also because of popular thought. All the developing and fast growing regions of india are located along the coast. All the regions like madras, bombay, and later smart cities hyderabad and bangalore had traditional advantages when compared to poor areas like bihar, UP or rajasthan (this is from the times of british). Combined with the caste equations, atrocious politicians, absence of social reforms, little education, all the poor regions have become areas of concentrated poverty. Ofcourse, mother nature does not help much these days (We screw her badly, so she screws us back!!!). If I own a company, I will not set it up so that a region can grow. I will set it up so that I can grow, I can profit. That is how human beings are - that is the reality. so, cant blame companies and MNC's for their indifference to poverty in areas of india.