Yes, in the short run. Who holds most of that money? In developing countries it is the elites. So if their holdings lose some value, they'll survive. But government spending puts money in the hands of people who need to work for a living. That will benefit the economy as these people will spend more and create demand. In the long run everyone becomes better off if a country undertakes a vigorous and well-thought out infrastructure program (including scientific infrastructure). Yes, I am a Keynesian.
Hello HN'ers, I am a long-timer lurker on HN, don't post anything, don't have Karma. But I do want to respond to the comment by quonn below, which is an example of a broader type of comment for these kinds of news: some _developing_country_ invests in _scientific_project_. People say, why are you wasting money on this when you should be feeding your people? To that I say, countries should be feeding their people, as well as investing in science. As an individual, you are constrained by money because you can't print it. To a country, money does literally grow on trees, and a country can print as much money as it wants. What should a country do to remove poverty? Invest in projects that create jobs - massive infrastructure projects come to mind here. But also invest in cutting edge science and build a scientific infrastructure. A country should, to create new knowledge, attempt that which others have not attempted. Kennedy's Man on the Moon speech is very much in this spirit. Eventually scientific progress made anywhere benefits all humanity. So I cheer India (or any other country) in such efforts.