Spices: For or against?

[Jinmyo]

I think Steve just likes French food better than Indian food.  Personally, I like Thai better than Vietnamese, and Chinese best of all.  I like Ethiopian alright, but not as much as Italian.  BBQ is pretty darned good, but I don't like it as much as Indian.  It's a matter of taste.

Clearly, as the numerous PMs from experts I have received through the fillings in my teeth tell me, you just don't get it. Wait. Wait. Incoming. What? Narjul zad dan? Yuhouj ke? Okay. Okay.

Clearly you get it Stone.

Please disregard.

[Pan]

I will not be called prejudiced because I have pointed out the limits to a cuisine.

Let's review what I called a prejudice, shall we?

(Steve Plotnicki @ Mar 21 2003, 06:43 PM)

Actually I'm not comparing them at all. I am asking why there aren't any Indian restaurants performing at the four star level? And if there was, what that would mean to the cuisine and what changes would they have to make? You see I think that Tony, India Girl and Nerissa would say that if I go to a place like Saloos in Lahore, I would find great Indian cuisine. But my gut tells me it still wouldn't be at the standard of the four star restaurants.

Me:

Yeah, why check it out if you'd rather make ignorant statements? Another way of saying this is that "relying on your gut" amounts to prejudice. You are prejudging what your reaction would be.

I then made this further remark:

I really think all of this is unbecoming of you, and totally inconsistent with your approach toward people who would deprecate French cuisine without eating at any 3-star establishments. But this has already been pointed out to you a bunch of times. So the question, then, is _why_ you prefer to be prejudiced than to at least concede the point that you simply don't know how you'd react to Indian cuisine on the highest level?

For you to get all huffy and defensive as a way of avoiding answering this question doesn't serve the thread well. As far as I've seen, no-one has accused you of being prejudiced against Indians as people, only as being prejudiced against Indian cuisine(s) - a prejudice which you continue to demonstrate, incessantly arguing from a standpoint of ignorance that haute Indian cuisine just can't possibly be comparable in quality to the French haute cuisine you so justly love. And what's even more odd is that you figuratively draw and quarter all who have the temerity to argue from a comparable standpoint of ignorance that French haute cuisine is in some way inferior to some other cuisine that they perhaps know better. From what I've seen in following your arguments about cuisine, you profess to believe in what you consider a meritocracy of cuisine ruling the high-end market. Considering that a true meritocracy takes in what's of the highest quality, no matter where it's from, and never acts out of ignorance to decline to consider possible sources of what's best, might you not consider adopting a policy of meritocracy in regard to your own gastronomy? That would do wonders for perceptions of your objectivity and rationality in argumentation. Of course, if you'd rather not explore what experts have told you are the best sources of Indian haute cuisine, that's your lookout, and like Indiagirl, I frankly don't give a damn. But in that case, are you really doing either this thread or yourself a service by continuing to devote more pages to the subject? Why not cut your losses and fall silent?

[Steve Plotnicki]

As far as I've seen, no-one has accused you of being prejudiced against Indians as people, only as being prejudiced against Indian cuisine(s) - a prejudice which you continue to demonstrate, incessantly arguing from a standpoint of ignorance that haute Indian cuisine just can't possibly be comparable in quality to the French haute cuisine you so justly love.

Oy. Let's forget about experience for a moment. What sets haute cuisine apart, is that it is a cooking technique unto itself. It is not bistro cuisine, not brasserie cuisine, not cafe cuisine, nor the cuisine one would find in a tea salon or a wine bar. It isn't even the type of cuisine one would find in a lesser French restaurant. In fact if you asked anyone to name a bunch of dishes that are from the haute cuisine recipe book, they could list dishes in the thousands. But from what people have said on this thread, and I am referring to people with knowledge, the same doesn't seem to be true about Indian cuisine. The Naan that has been so easily bandied about is available at my local Baluchi's. And I can get Butter Chicken at 15 places on E6th Street. Yes they are crappy versions, and yes in India they would probably be great. But it's the same cuisine. There isn't some different higher cuisine that is hiding out in the subcontinent. It's the same cuisine they serve here done well.

I've been talking about a new and higher cuisine then what they serve on 6th Street, or even in Diwan. Not just prepared better. That is why I do not need the experience of eating in India to draw a conclusion. All someone has to do is to describe dishes that would meet the criteria. So far people have brought up traditional dishes like Raan and different sauces used in lamb dishes. It's not the same thing as the description of the deconstructed Tortilla someone serves in Spain, and which was described on this site. I can eat a slice of Tortilla in a tapas bar, a fancy version in a formal restaurant, and go to a restaurant that practrices high cuisine and be served eggs that have been baked and lightly set which have been layered around potato foam. What is the equivelent of that in Indian cuisine? Or let's take a Saag Paneer. There must be fifty ways to combine spinach and cheese that are interesting. They can layer it like a terrine. They can blend the two together and shape it like dumplings. They can mash the cheese on a plate and top it with a mound of the spinach mixture. They can add things like nuts to change the texture. Can I find a reinvented Saag Paneer anywhere or will I always end up with cubes of cheese in fairly gloopy spinach, i.e., a better version of the traditional recipe?

Edited March 23, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Suvir Saran]

What is happening on this thread is that those who are partial to Indian cuisine, cannot tolerate the truth being told that it pretty much revolves around wet meat with a variety of different saucing techniques, and tandooris which from my experience most often puts out dry and overcooked meats. And rather then face up to those limitations in the cuisine, they would prefer to play the race card rather then argue it on the merits. Anil did it earlier in the thread and a bunch of us ignored it. This time I am pointing out that it is offensive and not the slightest bit funny. And it is no accident that it is cropping up at the point in the conversation where I have put forth an argument that Anil doesn't seem to have an answer to. That no matter how good the cuisine he is describing is, it is not high cuisine by the standards we use today.

Inspite of Nerissa's excellent company, I feel compelled to make a brief foray out of the "I give up" state. And only because I feel very misrepresented. And I certainly have never played the race card.

Also, I apologize to everyone who is here to discuss spices because I think if anywhere, this post belongs in that other thread we have all participated in "The Measure of All Things".

Steve, please read this with patience and an open mind.

Also, with the realization that I have ZERO incentive for making you think better of Indian food. Personally, I don't give a fuck. Really.

The only reason I am here, is the same reason I am on eGullet. It is a place for someone like me who loves food to hear about and learn from others about things I have not been able to experience myself. And to share and revel in common experiences. That is what I am trying to do here. Learn about French haute cuisine from you and hope that you will learn something about Indian cuisine from me. I believe the former has happened and the latter has not.

Yes, there are people on this thread who are partial to Indian food. That does not make their arguments invalid or unreasoned. This is what they have collectively said about it:

1. It is complex. Sometimes because of the spices. Other times because of the cooking techniques.

2. There are "haute cuisine" versions of it available in the east.

3. It is horribly misrepresented in the west. Also, the representations are limited to very specific types of Indian cuisines.

4. For somebody who has only experienced it in the west, Steve's opinions are more or less understandable, but they are only representative of Indian food as typically found in the west. They are not representative of Indian cuisine.

5. To extrapolate about all of Indian cuisine based on having only experienced it in the West is not valid.

6. The reasons that there are more amazing French restaurants in the west than there are Indian, are historical and socio-economic.

Now on to tandooris and "wet meat" as you call it.

Rubbing meat with spices and cooking it with dry heat is a technique the French use. Tandoori is no different. Even as a vegetarian, I have tasted succulent Tandoori chicken (that is not neon red, btw) - it is not meant to be dry and overcooked.

Wet meat - Many Indian curries are no different in concept than a fricasse. The lamb curries I mentioned rarely call for the lamb to be cooked in the sauce for any more than 10-15 minutes. And there are other techniques in Indian food. The use of flour to coat a meat, sweating vegetables, cooking meats whole in a spices broth, etc.

Grouping Indian techniques as "Overcooked, dry, tandooris, wet meat" etc. is the equivalent of grouping French food as "Lots of butter and cream, fried or baked hunks of meat, slathered with thickened, fatty sauces".

I believe we have, here and on other threads, tried to give you examples of Indian techniques in response to your points about it. I do not understand why they seem to make no difference to your opinion.

I believe we have never reached a point where we discussed reasonably whether one technique is more complex than another and what criterion can be used to judge the complexity of a technique. Time. Effort. I would have loved to participate in such a discussion. But we appear to have begun with the conclusion that French food techniques are superior to all and that Indian food techniques are inferior. All facts then seem to get quickly slotted into those conclusions and we proceed to support or defend them. Why a well executed raan is inferior in technique to a Carre de Agneau Persille is what I want to discuss, let the chips fall where they may.

Your last sentence in that post - That no matter how good the cuisine he is describing is, it is not high cuisine by the standards we use today. - is why I keep trying to retreat into "I give up" land.

Thanks for a great post Indiagirl!

[Pan]

As far as I've seen, no-one has accused you of being prejudiced against Indians as people, only as being prejudiced against Indian cuisine(s) - a prejudice which you continue to demonstrate, incessantly arguing from a standpoint of ignorance that haute Indian cuisine just can't possibly be comparable in quality to the French haute cuisine you so justly love.

Oy. Let's forget about experience for a moment. What sets haute cuisine apart, is that it is a cooking technique unto itself. It is not bistro cuisine, not brasserie cuisine, not cafe cuisine, nor the cuisine one would find in a tea salon or a wine bar. It isn't even the type of cuisine one would find in a lesser French restaurant. In fact if you asked anyone to name a bunch of dishes that are from the haute cuisine recipe book, they could list dishes in the thousands. But from what people have said on this thread, and I am referring to people with knowledge, the same doesn't seem to be true about Indian cuisine. The Naan that has been so easily bandied about is available at my local Baluchi's. And I can get Butter Chicken at 15 places on E6th Street. Yes they are crappy versions, and yes in India they would probably be great. But it's the same cuisine. There isn't some different higher cuisine that is hiding out in the subcontinent. It's the same cuisine they serve here done well.

You're acting like you're talking from knowledge, but you aren't. And I can tell you, from my limited experience in India, that there are dishes you can get there that you won't find anywhere in New York and which I didn't even find when I was in Malaysia in the mid-70s (and there is fabulous Indian food to be had in Malaysia that also is not to be had in these parts). Try going to Srinagar and having Kashmiri wedding banquet food and then telling me it's the same stuff they serve on 6th St.! It's an insult to our intelligence. And as for what you think people are telling you in this thread, have you ever really paid attention to them enough to really grasp what they've said? I think not. Which is why I called you on having a very strong prejudice regarding food from the Indian Subcontinent. Take a trip and go to the high-end places people have recommended in this thread; then, you will be able to make knowledgeable comments and comparisons. Now, all you can do is repeatedly state your prejudices. Which I suppose you will continue to do for another 10 pages?

[tommy]

Now, all you can do is repeatedly state your prejudices. Which I suppose you will continue to do for another 10 pages?

only if people keep talking to him.

[Tonyfinch]

I have a book in front of me called "New Indian Cookery" by one Meera Taneja. It ain't so new because it was published in 1983. The intro says the book "builds on the classical traditional cookery by challenging many of its orthodoxies, its limited or non use of some materials. ingredients and cookery processes. It proposes new recipes based on ....experimenting with spices and herbs........it does not contain well-tried favourites such as tandoori or mughlai, nor any traditional Kashmiri,Bengali or Hyderabadi dishes......the recipes described are the result of experiments with the processes, ingredients and structures of dishes. The emphasis is on dishes where the flavour of the main ingredient, whether it be meat, poultry ,fish or vegetables, is enhanced by using appropriate herbs and spices.....used selectively to add a subtle distinct flavour,rather than adding a large array of spices for every recipe............I emphasise the use of maybe just one highly aromatic spice in any one dish, so that when the full meal consisting of a number of dishes is created each has a totally taste, texture, colour and aroma to complement the others......."

India has been developing and modernising its classic cuisine to adapt to modern lifestyles and urban eating patterns and the availability of modern processes and a wider range of materials since 1983 at least,as this book shows. The idea that the cuisine is stuck in a timewarp or that subtle and elegant seasoning is somehow new is FALSE.

I will concede,however, and have said throughout this thread, that the perceived demands and preconceptions of most Indian restaurant goers in the UK and the West plus the apathy of many of the cooks and restaurants themselves, mean that many of the new and developmental ideas are taking their time to filter on to restaurant menus up and down the land. But exist they do and one can only hope that some culinarily talented youngsters can begin to see chefdom as aspirational and will commit themselves in the style of European chefs to driving Indian cuisine on to a new creative level in the West. It's all there just waiting to happen.

Edited March 23, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

You're acting like you're talking from knowledge, but you aren't. And I can tell you, from my limited experience in India, that there are dishes you can get there that you won't find anywhere in New York and which I didn't even find when I was in Malaysia in the mid-70s (and there is fabulous Indian food to be had in Malaysia that also is not to be had in these parts).

Pan - I don't have the burden of proving anything. There are people on this thread who claim to have knowledge and the best dish they can come up with is Naan, something I can order for delivery in my apartment from the local Baluchi's. I have been asking these people for 10 pages for a list of dishes or descriptions of cuisine that would be the equivelents of what I am describing and nobody has been able to do it. And you accuse me of having no knowledge? How about the people from India? You have Suvir, Anil, India Girl, Nerissa, do they have any knowledge? If they do, for ten pages they have pretty much described wet meat and tandoori. Oh yes, and you eat it with special breads.

That every dish prepared in the sub-continent isn't available in NYC or London means nothing. I am asking if they have a higher cuisine that they practice in discreet places. Like the cuisine you ate with your father when you travelled in Europe. Special cuisine that is only found in certain places because the practice of the cuisine is so demanding. So far, the knowledgable people on this thread have not been able to identify if and where that cuisine exists.

I will repeat what LML told one very knowledgable person on the Spanish regional thread. You can go on and on about your own cuisine and you can love it to death, but be objective about what it really is. I will not be browbeaten into agreeing it is more then it is, just because a bunch of people who love the cuisine can't hack that it might not include the level of technique I am describing. And while I will be the first to agree that when you are there it is something much more then what you can get here, that doesn't mean the type of culinary technique that goes into making its best example is on par with other great culinary techniques.

That is something we can all measure without having tasted the dishes. But in order to do that, the knowledgable people on this thread have to come forward with examples of dishes and the techniques involved to make them and prove their case. They can't prove their case by making statements about me. Whether it is implying racism, prejudice or saying I have the temerity to say what I have said. This discussion is a matter of the real facts, and you either put them forth or you don't. But you can't prove anything if you don't and if you haven't figured it out by now, the burden is on you, not on me. Because a higher Indian cuisine, that is discreet from what is practiced in places like Diwan, does not exist unless there is proof that it exists. All of your protestations and dislike for hearing what I am saying will not change that fact.

So far, the only people on this thread who have put forth real examples are Anil with Naan and India Girl with Biryani. Pan has now put forth wedding banquet cuisine. I guess I have to hang around Bombay and make some friends of people who are engaged to be married. Otherwise how would I get to eat it? But getting back to the main point, conceptually, and it depends on having versions prepared with the proper amount of care and precision, those dishes could be the type of thing I'm describing. But they could also be the equivelent of bistro dishes or in other words, fancier home cooking. If you really want this discussion to move on, we need more examples like those with explanations of what makes the dishes so unique and demanding.

The position I originally took in this thread, that in order for Indian cuisine to gain worldwide acceptance at the level of places like Daniel or Gordon Ramsey or even Babbo, they would need to tone down the spicing routines and change the balance, seems to be a logical position. And while the response to that, which is really Tony's, that in India it is more balanced then it is in the west, is duly noted, I also make the point that it is only one of the issues. The restaurants will also need to practice a higher level of technique then what is associated with places like Diwan. Not a better version of what they do, a version that transcends what they do. For some reason, people here do not like to hear that statement. I'm not quite sure why? They want to insist that what currently exists is sufficient, even though, it might be improved on in the way I'm describing.

And as long as we know Suvir has been looking on, what about Indian sweets? Personally, I happen to like the crappy ones they offer in NYC. I'm quite happy stopping at my little sweet shop in Glen Oaks and picking up some sweets to eat in the car as I drive out to the island. But you have to admit that the state of Indian desserts are atrocious compared to other cuisines. Is there a higher version of Indian pastry making or is what I get in Glen Oaks it? And I don't mean that the Dudhi Halvah is better in Bombay then Bellerose. I am asking if there is an equivelent of Payard or St. Ambrose where the creations are original and employ the same high level of technique that they would employ, and which your neighborhood bakery doesn't know how to employ? But that brings me to a question that Suvir can answer (or anyone else for that matter.) Since they have wheat flour in India, how come a tradition of baking things that rise didn't develop. The breads are flat breads. The pastries from my experience aren't made in a way that rises. I might be saying that in an unsophisticated way but I hope you understand what I mean.

Tony - Thank you for adding that. I for one would very much like to see it happen. As I've stated many times, the more to eat the merrier. But I wonder, since people like Simon, Anil and you, seem so allergic to what they do at places like Tabla, Cinammon Club and Zaika, are people really open minded about the development of a new branch of Indian cuisine?

[Jason Perlow]

Plotnicki, you've just expounded so much ignorance in a single post that you could park six aircraft carriers on it. I'm impressed.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I'm flattered. The ad hoiminem meter always approaches the red line (and sometimes goes past it) whenever I get this close to the bone of an issue.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for someone with knowledge to demonstrate a different cuisine other then the same cuisine available at Diwan and Tamarind. Not a better version, a different cuisine. Does it exist and who knows about it?

[Tonyfinch]

I will not be browbeaten into agreeing it is more then it is, just because a bunch of people who love the cuisine can't hack that it might not include the level of technique I am describing.

You still don't get it do you. The bunch of people who love the cuisine DON'T GIVE A MONKEY'S TOSS that it doesn't include the level of technique that you are describing. It is ONLY YOU who is obsessed with measuring all cuisines against French "techniques". And against it of course all other cuisines will be found wanting because you've rigged the terms of the comparison. Everytime someone says "so and so cuisine is good" youre knee jerk response is to argue: "well, it may taste nice and all .......BUT THE TECHNIQUES IT USES AREN'T AS EVOLVED AS 3 STAR MICHELIN RESTAURANTS"

Stevelah, you may be right but NOBODY CARES BUT YOU.None of us are interested in your game. It's boring because there's only one possible winner. All we're trying to say is that the scope ,range variety, depth and exoticism of Indian food goes beyond anything that you've experienced to date and that the reason you may not have experienced it is because you have not gone to the places where the cuisine is to be had at its best, which is the sub continent itself,other Eastern countries and Eastern and South Africa.

Why is this so hard for you to acknowledge? It's ridiculous. If I say to you "I reckon that St. Veran is no better than Montrachet" and you say "Well have you tried Montrachet?". And I say"No, I don't really have to because I've got a feeling in my gut that it won't be any better" what sort of a twit does that make me?

Not every discussion about food is a competition. There is nothing intinsically "good" or "bad" about food which utilises spices. It is the skill and wisdom with which they are prepared and deployed that counts and the "new" Indian cuisine will find a path in the West without having to become like the abysmal The Cinammon Club, which, as I've said before, is an Indian restaurant for people who want Indian restaurants to be French restautrants. Maybe , Steve, your ideal culinary world is one where ALL restaurants are French restaurants regardless of the origins of their cuisine. If that's the case say so and then maybe we can avoid these tortuous arguments in the future.

Edited March 23, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[Jinmyo]

As I said on the pasta thread,

No matter how delcious it might be, a pasta dish might never fulfill the particular criteria that Steve defines as high cuisine.

Well, that's fine.

So:

No matter how delcious it might be, Indian food might never fulfill the particular criteria that Steve defines as high cuisine.

Well, that's fine.

Really. What does it matter?

[Suvir Saran]

The history of Indian cooking

Indian Cuisine as Haute Cuisine

Getting to know Indian food

On comprehending Indian cuisine

Fusion Food -Profoundly Dishonest - Discuss

Restaurant Cooking vs. Home Cooking

[Steve Plotnicki]

All of this is fine and dandy but, the conversation went down this road because you refused to accept my answer to Adam's question. If I recall correctly, my position was that as cuisine becomes more and more globalized, that Indian chefs would have to tone down their spicing routines. You took exception with that statement on the basis that their cuisine was already sufficient and didn't need any improvement or tinkering with. I disagree. I believe that there is a level of Indian cuisine, yet to be developed, that will be a haute cuisine equivelent. In fact I think you see this phenomenon going on in almost every cuisine.

I don't know why this statement bothers you and some of the others so much. But it obviously does because you have been arguing with me about it for 10 pages. If as you say, you really didn't care about it, you needn't have responded to the original statement, which in my opinion is both fairly unexceptional as well as describing something that can be an improvement. But don't argue with me for ten pages and the say nobody cares about it. It's too late to adopt the "nobody cares position" because you have cared for the last ten pages.

Nor have I seen you or anbody offer evidence that refutes my original assertion. Indian cuisine that is adopted as part of a globalized cuisine will be less assertive with their spicing. Maybe you should take a different approach and realize I am pointing out something that is actually happening? And if the chefs who practice it are talented, they will generally improve all cuisine[/b.] I do not see what there is to argue about with that statement. But somehow you have managed to do it for ten pages.

[tommy]

But don't argue with me for ten pages and the say nobody cares about it. It's too late to adopt the "nobody cares position" because you have cared for the last ten pages.

people can stop caring you know.

[nerissa]

But don't argue with me for ten pages and the say nobody cares about it. It's too late to adopt the "nobody cares position" because you have cared for the last ten pages.

people can stop caring you know.

You might as well talk to the cat.

(Apologies to John Cleese)

[Tonyfinch]

No, now let's get this straight. I will not have words put in my mouth. What I've been arguing is that that Indian food can be complex, elegant, subtle, exotic, rich, fragrant etc. etc. as any cuisine in the world at its best. I've been bemoaning the fact that too often "its best " is not to be found in the West. We have not gone too deeply into why, although we've touched on some of the reasons.I've been saying that those qualities exist already in the cuisine and that my hope is that we will increasingly see those qualities on restaurant menus in London and New York. I've been trying to tell you that a better version of the cuisine exists than perhaps you've had. I DO believe that Indian restaurant cuisine in the West needs developing. I do not neccessarily conceptualise that development in terms of "toning things down". More in terms of sharpening, freshening, redefining as per the book I quoted above.

I have not been arguing with you French technique v. Indian technique. I am not interested in that discussion. It is you who keeps wanting to shift the discussion towards a technique competition. Those of us who love Indian AND French food do not see a competition. It is you who expresses everything in competitive terms and needs to have winners and losers whenever cuisine is discussed.

But hey it's my birthday today. I'm in a good mood after the Majumdar boys cooked up a wonderful Porchetta fest at my flat last night. If it makes you happy: "FRENCH CULINARY TECHNIQUES ARE BETTER THAN INDIAN CULINARY TECHNIQUES" Happy now? Right, pass me me curry and roti.

Edited March 23, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[indiagirl]

But it's the same cuisine. There isn't some different higher cuisine that is hiding out in the subcontinent. It's the same cuisine they serve here done well.

How do you know there isin't a higher cuisine hiding in the sub continent? A lot of people in this thread have told you there is. But now we're back where we started. Chakravyu. The inexorable downward spiral. No escape. Help me. I'm trapped.

That is something we can all measure without having tasted the dishes. But in order to do that, the knowledgable people on this thread have to come forward with examples of dishes and the techniques involved to make them and prove their case. They can't prove their case by making statements about me.

I did. And you agreed that the technique for Raan may be superior. But now we're back where we started. Chakravyu. The inexorable downward spiral. No escape. Help me. I'm trapped.

So far, the only people on this thread who have put forth real examples are Anil with Naan and India Girl with Biryani. Pan has now put forth wedding banquet cuisine.

Please please please read my posts. I described several lamb dishes, compared and contrasted Indian techniques with French techniques, like a fricasse. I described chiravate (wheat flour). I described what real tandoori tastes like. Tony Finch described the preface of a cookbook that describes ideals you wanted to see. But now we're back where we started. Chakravyu. The inexorable downward spiral. No escape. Help me. I'm trapped.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for someone with knowledge to demonstrate a different cuisine other then the same cuisine available at Diwan and Tamarind. Not a better version, a different cuisine. Does it exist and who knows about it?

Yes. It does. I know about it. Suvir does. TonyFinch does.

Pan does. The woman who wrote the cookbook that Tony Finch quoted does. It cannot be found in the West. It should be. It eventually will. We've described restaurants that have it. We've linked to threads that talk about it. But now we're back where we started. Chakravyu. The inexorable downward spiral. No escape. Help me. I'm trapped.

If I recall correctly, my position was that as cuisine becomes more and more globalized, that Indian chefs would have to tone down their spicing routines. You took exception with that statement on the basis that  their cuisine was already sufficient and didn't need any improvement or tinkering with. I disagree. I believe that there is a level of Indian cuisine, yet to be developed, that will be a haute cuisine equivelent. In fact I think you see this phenomenon going on in almost every cuisine.

I don't think anyone said that the cuisine is already sufficient and does not need improvement. EVERYTHING can be improved and tinkered with. EVERYTHING.

What we've tried to say is that good representations on Indian cuisine ALREADY demonstrate a better, more careful, subtler spicing than you seem to be aware of. You even agreed with that.

But then you said that was not sufficient. And you mentioned technique. And you were given examples of that. And you agreed that there are techniques that could be superior. But what about the spicing? Tone that down will ya.

But, like I think I've said somewhere on this thread before, now we're back where we started. Chakravyu. The inexorable downward spiral. No escape. Help me. I'm trapped.

So here is a valid point you've made that I would like to discuss. I completely agree that the presence of restaurants is the perfect environment in which a cuisine can evolve and develop. I believe, restaurant culture for Indian cuisine (anywhere in the world) is not at the same point in time as for French food. Witness the fact that there is no equivalent of the Michelin guide in India. But I believe Indian food has evolved over the centuries. In private kitchens and palaces and of late, in restaurants.

I would love to hear eGullet opinions on :

A. My rather obvious attempt at moving this discussion on to something I would like to hear discussed.

B. Can haute cuisine only develop in restaurants?

TonyFinch - love your posts :)

Suvir - thanks for the compliments

Plotnicki - am I still your favorite person? :P

[indiagirl]

One last thought:

I am not here to proselytize or to confess. I am here to learn, and occasionally, to inform.

[Steve Plotnicki]

How do you know there isin't a higher cuisine hiding in the sub continent? A lot of people in this thread have told you there is.

India Girl - Nobody told me there is. Everyone said that it's the same cuisine prepared better. Even Tony in his last post says the following;

"I've been trying to tell you that a better version of the cuisine exists than perhaps you've had."

As I have been saying, I am not asking about a better version of the same cuisine. I am asking about a higher version of the same cuisine. If there is such a thing, nobody here has disclosed what that is. Even the dishes you listed, those are pretty much the same dishes you can get everywhere.

No, now let's get this straight. I will not have words put in my mouth. What I've been arguing is that that Indian food can be complex, elegant, subtle, exotic, rich, fragrant etc. etc. as any cuisine in the world at its best. I've been bemoaning the fact that too often "its best " is not to be found in the West. We have not gone too deeply into why, although we've touched on some of the reasons.I've been saying that those qualities exist already in the cuisine and that my hope is that we will increasingly see those qualities on restaurant menus in London and New York. I've been trying to tell you that a better version of the cuisine exists than perhaps you've had. I DO believe that Indian restaurant cuisine in the West needs developing. I do not neccessarily conceptualise that development in terms of "toning things down". More in terms of sharpening, freshening, redefining as per the book I quoted above.

Tony - While I disagree with your conclusion, at least this makes progress. But if you look around you and see how cuisines redefined or reinvented themselves, it's all about combining ingredients and techniques from different cuisines as well as toning down the spicing. "Redefining" when it comes to Indian cuisine means that somebody is going to figure out how to sauce a Dover Sole properly. And properly means, in a way where the spicing and saucing technique doesn't interfere with the taste of the fish. That is because affluent diners pay 25 pounds for a top notch Dover Sole and they are paying the money to taste the quality of the fish, not the quality of the spices (non-Indian diners that is.) I do not expect this to change. To say this is not the way it is going to go is to be blind to what is going on around you. And this has nothing to do with French versus Indian technique. It has to do with what affluent diners want to spend their money on. And if you do not think this describes Indian diners in the west, it will when we are talking about what their children and grandchildren will eat.

[Pan]

Quotes from Steve Plotnicki:

Pan - I don't have the burden of proving anything.

By no means. Continue to make ignorant statements, as you've shown you will.

There are people on this thread who claim to have knowledge and the best dish they can come up with is Naan, something I can order for delivery in my apartment from the local Baluchi's.

That's Raan, not Naan!

And I might as well reply that I can get a poor excuse for "French Onion Soup" in diners. So what?

So far, the only people on this thread who have put forth real examples are Anil with Naan and India Girl with Biryani. Pan has now put forth wedding banquet cuisine. I guess I have to hang around Bombay and make some friends of people who are engaged to be married. Otherwise how would I get to eat it?

I got it at a restaurant up a flight of rickety stairs overlooking the main square in Srinagar. It was recommended by the concierge at the classy hotel we were staying at, but I figure the physical condition of the restaurant would have convinced you that the food coudn't be special and at a high level, and that's too bad for you.

But at this point, the most meaningful remark is by Tommy:

QUOTE (Pan @ Mar 23 2003, 04:29 AM)

Now, all you can do is repeatedly state your prejudices. Which I suppose you will continue to do for another 10 pages? 

only if people keep talking to him. 

So this is likely my last post in this thread. Feel free to continue making yourself seem silly, at great length.

[NeroW]

Whoa. You guys all need a whisky.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I got it at a restaurant up a flight of rickety stairs overlooking the main square in Srinagar. It was recommended by the concierge at the classy hotel we were staying at, but I figure the physical condition of the restaurant would have convinced you that the food coudn't be special and at a high level, and that's too bad for you.

This quote shows your general ignorance (or refusal to ackowledge) the validity of what I am saying. I am not talking about delicious food being the standard. I am talking about unusual and unique techniques being the standard. It doesn't make a difference to me what type of technique it is, French, Indian, Mexican etc. It just has to be a high level of technique that is not practiced in the daily restaurants people eat in, which sounds to me what you ate up those rickety stairs.

Otherwise you can continue on your ad hominem. The more it goes on instead of giving examples to refute the assertion, the more it looks like you can't refute it. You can't prove anything about food by speculating what I would think about the physical condition of the restaurant. But you can keep trying and you will just keep looking foolish and like you don't know anything about fine cuisine.

[Tonyfinch]

"Redefining" when it comes to Indian cuisine means that somebody is going to figure out how to sauce a Dover Sole properly. And properly means, in a way where the spicing and saucing technique doesn't interfere with the taste of the fish.

Steve,but your envisaging a future world in which Dover Sole is eaten in every restaurant and that the only difference between the restaurants is some are better at spicing and saucing than others. Not too exciting a world IMO.

I personally do not wish to see Indian restaurants serving Dover Sole. To me that would not be a development. Why would anyone go to an Indian restaurant to eat a Dover Sole?

No, I see the future as involving better quality examples of foods already indigenous to the cuisine, so yes free range corn fed chickens, top quality seafood and vegetables, the best pulses and rice and flour and yogurt, excellent goat mutton and lamb, and fresh spices and herbs--and processes that may not be traditional but are now available applied by chefs committed to maintaining regional authenticity at the roots of their cuisine while refining and adapting it to meet modern needs and tastes-much less oil and ghee for example,new and exciting marinades and masala mixtures for example. That's what people will want to go and eat in Indian restaurants FOR, not to eat a "mildly spiced " Dover Sole.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - I was only using Dover Sole as an example. Change that ingredient for any of the ones you mentioned. I believe that if you want to taste top quality corn-fed chicken, or top quality seafood, the spicing is going to have to be toned down. Let me give you an example.

Recently I had dinner at Union Pacific. They served a truffle risotto with red shrimp that were flown in from Spain's northern coast. The dish was terrific. Why? Because the truffle flavor didn't drown out the unique taste of the shrimp. But I also had what they called "Risotto" at Zaika in London last year. And I think it was shrimp as well, although I'm not sure but someone can check the archives. That dish was not successful because it was overspiced, meaning the spicing was so heavy you couldn't taste the flavor of the rice or the shrimp. Therein the difference lies. Western style dining will always revolve around the former. And while it might just be my prediction, I do not believe that what we accept in the west as the proper balance between ingredients and spices is going to change. It has nothing to do with "mildly spiced." It has to do with with what I think a universal concept of proper spicing means in the west. I predict that Indian cuisine will adapt to that standard.