"Let me tell you another story: my neighbour in the upper-middle-class area where I live is a man who owns luxury hotels. His house is huge, but no sooner had he moved in than he appropriated about half of the pavement space to the front and side of his house, claiming it for his own. This means less parking for others, less pavement for children, less walking space for everyone. Of the 400-odd houses in this area, at least half have done this. At the same time they have also collectively seen off the only roadside tea stall in the area that served all the service providers – the guards, the drivers, the domestics, the sweepers. "
Both the writer and you are discounting the 200 odd houses in the area that have not claimed an entitlement on the pavement, by doing so you are discrediting the willingness of those who are playing by the rules to further an argument that does no hold scrutiny. Further more as others have stated in comments, there is nothing in the article that is uniquely Indian.
> In India this is quite possible, a middle class person could easily hire 3-4 people and therefore start to create change.
Most people do not have a need to hire 3-4 people. Growing up it was common to have a maid who helped with household chores due to the absence of amenities like a dish washer or washing machine. As these services become available there is no need to hire folks to do such work. Hiring folks and having them laze around only to take home wages is a ridiculous idea, moreover wealth saved by not hiring these folks is spent on other purposes (movies, restaurants etc.) that the so called wealth might consider a good return on investment. These in turn create jobs for services that are required (taxi drivers, ticket vendors, waiters, restaurant managers etc.). The fact that the so called upper class people do not hire folks to do their dishes and laundry is if anything a move towards a society with fewer artificial classes.