There is no shortage of businessmen in India who have run their firms into the ground, putting into jeopardy money given to them by small shareholders.
Think of Manmohan Singh as the country's CEO, a professional who was elevated to the top job because of his accomplishments and not because of family connections. Suddenly, a decision taken by him is condemned by the largest stakeholder as "nonsense" that ought to be "torn up and thrown away", not in a closed-door board meeting in which the stakeholder is present but on national television.
This causes him serious loss of face. He doesn't resign, perhaps because the job comes with a whole lot of perks, but his authority is ravaged. What if the largest stakeholder was also the CEO and was responsible for the questionable decision? Would he have received a similar rebuke?
Would anybody have dared to chastise him in public, cut his stature by 99 per cent in a matter of minutes? I am pretty certain nothing would have happened to him. The Indian tradition is to give the promoter-CEO a free hand. He cannot be dislodged and is answerable to nobody.