Hacker News Reader

Comment by signal11 | Hacker News Reader

I believe these are subsidized (the article does mention economists complaining that these are a drain on the exchequer).

A more subtle point is that these subsidized "canteens" are in urban India, which is already much better off than rural India, where people even now regularly die of hunger[1]. I'm not saying urban poverty isn't a real issue, but the scale of poverty in rural India is much greater.

It's worth noting that you can get free food in many places in India (and in some cities in Europe and the US), via the Sikh langar[2] which is funded by charity and volunteers.

[1] for instance: http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/oct/22/man-starv... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)

View on HN

I feel this might be one of those cases where people would prefer to pay some feel -no matter how small- than bear the burden of the social and emotional cost of asking for a handout.

There are not that many Sikhs around. 22 million in a country of 1.2 billion. Most live in the north. You can't easily go get food from Sikhs.

You can’t easily go get food from Sikhs? As in what terms?

If you are in South India and are poor, how are you going to find a gurdwara? Might be quite far away and require bus fare that you don't have.

Its also a question of mobility, if you are staying far would you spend money and time to travel just to eat and get back, especially given you have to work the whole day as well.

The point about majority of Sikhs living in north is irrelevant. The gurudwara provide free food. There are multiple gurudwaras in almost all Indian states [1]. Most of them have langar though some only do on weekends. You can always find one using Google Maps at a location near you, though it might be inconvenient if you have limited means of travel. Several poor people shift base and reside outside or even inside gurudwaras for free accommodation and food.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gurdwaras Some of the gurudwaras

> ...it might be inconvenient if you have limited means of travel.

Google Maps...really? I don't mean offense for being obtuse, but I sense a bit of first-world bias in your assessment.

I would imagine that for someone who is so poor that finding a simple meal is a daily struggle, what I might perceive as an inconvenience is almost certainly a show-stopping barrier.

There is a large Sikh diaspora in my country, Canada. Anyone can go into a Sikh temple here and be fed, although I don't imagine many people know that.

Also, every week a Sikh group feeds the homeless and disenfranchised on East Hastings in Vancouver.

So yes, I can in fact easily get food from the Sikhs. :) And I have, when I was amongst the disenfranchised. It was very appreciated.

How is the wealthiest province of Canada even remotely comparable to India in the aggregate?

Given the fact that Indian state already run a lot food programs and passed the National Food Security Act in 2003 [1], this just adding burden to the existing system. And on that end economists are right in complaining because this is nothing but redundancy built to ensure incumbents win the next election. Once elected they might ask for central package or special status for the state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Food_Security_Act,_20...

>>I'm not saying urban poverty isn't a real issue

Most people I know who are eating here are service professionals. Drivers, janitors, poor students etc. And most have a positive feedback. Being able to afford food, which is hot and fills stomach, served almost wherever they work. They can eat quickly and get back to work.

It’s just not the Gurudwara. Many temples in India and around the world provide free food. It’s called “sadavrat”. Providing food to the needy is the best form of service to god.

While admirable, food provided by temples is not akin to Indira canteen. The ground reality is that a person of a different caste or religion would not be able (or not feel comfortable) to avail services, where at a low-cost canteen, he or she is able to partake quality food at the canteens.

There is a lot of value that these canteens provide over haphazard temple based food charity.

> It's worth noting that you can get free food in many places in India (and in some cities in Europe and the US), via the Sikh langar[2] which is funded by charity and volunteers.

Incidentedly, Indira Gandhi (After whom the Indira canteen is named) was assassinated by Sikhs. Does the naming of the canteen have anything to do with the assassination ?

Not a Sikh but I don't believe these are related. As per wikipedia "Langar (Punjabi: ਲੰਗਰ) (kitchen) is the term used in Sikhism for the community kitchen in a Gurdwara where a free meal is served to all the visitors, without distinction of religion, caste, gender, economic status or ethnicity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)

The assasination of Indira Gandhi was related a separatist movement who wanted Punjab to secede from the rest of India (while Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister)

Karnataka is governed by the Congress Party of which Indira Gandhi was the leader (and Prime Minister of India). I think that's the only connection.

Congress party cannot do such things. Congress is ruling Punjab. Number of people having food in langar run by Sikhs is not common in Karnataka anyway. So canteen as anti-sikh symbol is not possible.

I doubt the naming has anything to do with it. It is a nice initiative and independent of any attempts to tie it to any history and good to see initiative to see happening in other areas of India.

Sikhs from the Punjab province of India have a free community kitchen for anyone from any background to break bread together, each day.

It is a vegetarian meal designed to express and practice equality among all of humanity and was in part meant to abolish the caste system.

Anyone can go into any Sikh place and have a free meal anywhere in the world. I don't have the link handy but it works out to a few million meals a day around a the world for free, paid for solely by donations.

Unlike western countries where getting free food is nearly impossible, getting free food in India is quite easy. Many temples provide free food. Even people offer free food.

It is not easy. I don't know why you're spreading this fallacy. India has one of the highest instances of malnourished children. If it was that easy, why are there so many hungry people?

Sure... if Indians are malnourished, how come the population keeps growing? It is usually the poor that have many children.

For some of the poor, just like they don't have access to food, they don't have access to contraceptives (or sex education).

As an aside, India's birth rate has been dropping precipitously over the last few decades. In 1960 the birth rate was 5.9 per woman; today it's 2.4 and still falling. India's birth rate is now lower than America prior to 1970. At current trends, the birth rate in India will drop below the replacement rate within a decade.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...

I'd be shocked if it hadn't it's a trend that recurs every time a country improves it's economic state and women become part of the work force.

Oh my god, I'm worried about India's population starting to decrease now ....

More seriously, is there a way to look before 1960? I want to look from 1930 or so, I think India's population really exploded post-Independence.

Until the modern era, the global birth rate was fairly constant at about six per woman. The population growth we've experienced over the last century is mostly to do with child survival.

Before 1900, the child mortality rate in India was over 50%. If you need children to care for you in old age and expect most of your children to die, you're likely to have a lot of them. When child survival improved, attitudes changed. Parents no longer want three or four children to work on the family farm, they want one or two children to become doctors or engineers. Economic development and the availability of reliable contraception have made that aspiration practical.

If you're interested in the topic, I can highly recommend this lecture by the late Hans Rosling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

Yeah, I agree, especially about the mortality rate. Anecdotally, every grandfather-aged person I know has 4+ children, but almost all father-aged ones have 2 or less (only 2 exceptions, of which 1 had twins).

Thanks for the other information in your comment!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com