I am so sick of people who keep defending garbage decisions that were made, regardless of when they were made. I would rather you just admit the following information in your posts, so that we could most quickly catergorize and ignore your comments based on our own biases:
1st- You are an Anand fan.
2nd- You would prefer the match was in Chennai, because it is convenient for Anand.
3rd- It doesn't convict you at all that Carlsen should have to have every disadvantage plausible, that he doesn't deserve.
4th- You think two wrongs make a right in doing this to Carlsen, since Anand was too inept to stand up for himself in the same situation.
5th- You are most likely a biased, poor sport, by nature yourself, who would glady prefer these sorts of things in your own matches if you don't prefer a neutral venue, every single time.....ever....no matter what....for WCC.
This should be a prerequisite, every single time. The highest non homesite venue should get the nod. In fact, it should be against FIDE rules for a home country to even suggest holding it in their country. It makes me think the same thing of them as I alluded to earlier in this post...
Is there any prob in hosting the matches in chennai? 
IMO, if FIDE doesn't allow the open bidding process to occur and takes away half of the potential earnings these players could make, it would be a travesty. Not only do the top players work very hard to hone their skills, in hopes of being the best, but also making as good of a living doing what they love, as the possibly can.
For the sake of every chess player trying to make a living, I think FIDE needs to have an open bidding process that selects the highest bidding neutral venue for WCC matches, otherwise, they are a detriment to not only all of their players, but to themselves.