Zuckerberg, India doesn't want your free, crappy bananas.

Today the news was reported that the government of India has rejected Facebook's plans for connecting the masses of India's poorer residents to limited internet access. The big buzz word that's being thrown around is "net-neutrality": the idea that all areas of the web should be treated equally. The Indian government's biggest beef with the service Facebook was offering was that it limited the access to a certain set of websites and apps. Free Basics, as the program was named, would not be a full-access ISP; it is/was intended to be just that: basic. To me, someone who pays for their internet access, I would think that getting a limited connection for FREE would be a no-brainer for people to grab onto. Apparently the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and I do not have the same thought process. Excluding websites and apps that Facebook doesn't want(or like) for whatever reason, was too much for them to overlook. I guess they would rather their populous be completely cut off for free than be limited-ly connected to the rest of the world for the same price?

Am I the only one confused here?

Let's flesh this situation out a bit by swapping out the product(providing internet access) with something else to see if the decision seems just as rational. Let's take for instance bananas. Bananas in India are expensive. Pricey enough that only 19% of the people have access to them. It seems like a shame, you know, bananas are pretty sweet and most other countries that are more developed have banana access to almost everyone. Bananas are pretty much ubiquitous in some areas. So, to help out India a nice man decides to provide free bananas to the people so that more people could enjoy them. Now, these bananas are not top quality; they are a bit smaller and you can't always guarantee the quality is always there. But they are absolutely free and voluntary; no bananas will be forced
 on anyone who doesn't want them.

Unfortunately the Indian government doesn't like the idea because the bananas aren't as good as the standard bananas(you know, the ones that only the wealthier can afford) and we've all decided
that all bananas should be equal. So, if this nice man's bananas are not exactly like the bananas that nobody can afford, then we don't want them.

My first question is 'Did anyone ask the people of India if they wanted the free program?'. Did the TRAI gather info/polling from the public before making the decision to scoff at a free gift?  I would like to think they did, but I would also like to think that the people of India aren't that hell-bent on keeping the net-neutrality idea relevant. Like I already stated, I would find it very normal for most of them to be like, "um, yes; give me free internet access!".

So, to sum up my take on the situation: Zuckerberg want's to give India free, crappy banana's. India said 'No thanks' to the free bananas on the principle that all bananas should be awesome.
Meanwhile, the Indian government officials who turned down the free, crappy bananas most likely all have access to bananas themselves.