It's often discussed that how the urban middle-class that had emerged due to the institutions that were built in India, after independence, turned against the same model and went on to hate it.
The generation that got jobs due to colleges, schools, hospitals, IITs and AIIMs, PSUs and major institutions, vital installations, was the first that provided the push to Ram Temple movement in the decade of 1980s.
Also, later when Nehru-Gandhi family was targeted, it was generally the middle-class that lived in cities, bought this propaganda and wholehearted supported the BJP. Over the years, the babus who enjoyed job security and even managed to get his next generation, fully settled, turned into the Congress-hater.
Actually, as it is about past, one must remember how certain rulers felt that if they tried to uplift masses, it would be disastrous for them as the people would have growing aspirations, will seek more, and would never be satisfied.
In princely states, some of these rulers didn't want people to get educated. If masses are poor, they are resigned to fate. There is less of feeling of entitlement, let alone raise voice or speak against the regime and the Raja.
Post-independence, there was nation building, institutions were set up, lakhs got govt jobs. Those benefited, those who came out of poverty, they wanted continuous growing prosperity---for self, not others i.e. not for other sections.
Their next generation too wanted same, the 'entitlement'. Also, this class that didn't have to worry about two square meals, was now relatively affluent. With luxury, comes time to think of golden past. As it happens, those who enjoyed fruits of development, became critics of the set up that propped them, saw it as completely against their traditions, culture and Sanskar.
Remember, the more misery, poverty and unemployment, it suits the ruler who has committed supporter base. It's a wonderful idea and system to ensure that focus is not kept education or job creation, that institutions are sold or destroyed.
Many rulers considered 'clever' in the past, who managed to keep their throne and had totally 'dedicated subjects', followed this model. Even otherwise, as they say that if all get educated, its tough as they would want desk job, which will create imbalance in society.
The thought that let them have 'chutney roti' and they would be happy with a 'mithai' once or twice on festivals. This keeps the public happy, otherwise, once it is used to comforts, there is no more thrill in it and no question of being grateful for smaller or even bigger things.
After all, 'optimum' number of people uplifted (out of poverty). It is not for the rest, entire populace. Now, the need for more people as cheap labour. Less job security for them would ensure that they are insecure, fearful. The more vulnerable, the more dedicated they would be.
For any ruler or regime in a modern democracy, toughest task is to deal with 'expectations'. How you deal with it, because expectations will continue to rise. And, there'll be anti-incumbency, too. So, how can a dream merchant, deal with it for long! Be a crook or totally break the system. Do both.