This says it all. I am from India and I believe its the governments job to help social security measures rather than helping corporate.
Compare for example with Norway, which also made its oil industry completely state-owned, but is not in any way relying on oil profits to run the country.
Not sure if it has recovered since the 1990 war, but Kuwait was an example of a better long-range strategy if your main immediate source of income is oil -- you invest a large share of the profits from that in other things, while using some of the proceeds from both oil and the other investments on services for citizens. Its not as much short term benefit in citizen services, but its better for long-term stability (well, up until the fact that you have invested in a way that makes your returns better when oil prices are low gives you conflicting interests to your neighbor who hasn't invested in other things the way you have, forming one of the reasons they use their investment in one of the largest militaries in the region to invade, occupy, and ravage your country.)
For a healthy economy and happy people you have to tend to both business and individuals pushing money and regulations this way and that so that both are successful. When both are successful you only need minimal resources to keep them that way. What you can be sure of is that both pure hands-off capitalism and 20th century communism lead to serious social ills. The societies doing best in the world seem to be social democracies which though experience have taken the best of the extreme ideals of previous centuries.
It's much harder, though, to rally for careful deliberate moderation. People around the world try to make complex matters simple and take them to extremes because it's easy. Real progress, real improvements, real better futures require careful consideration and balance.
The governments job should be to maintain a peaceful society, protecting property rights and give people personal, economic and speech freedom. Those conditions lead to improvements in wealth,and at that point some of the he tax money can be diverted into safety net spending.
Arguing for it from the top down 'it's the governments job to help social security measures' fails to give the credit for generation of the wealth in the first place. Failing to understand the difference - the governments don't have and don't make money - leads to a fundamental mistake of 'the government has all the money, why not give some to me?'.