Why do people believe curry is Indian?

Considering India, Bangladesh and Pakistan used to be one country, and the average person's knowledge of South Asia isn't great,l "Indian" is generally used for anything from South Asia

But Bengal and the five provinces of Pakistan have been around for 1000+ years, therefore I don't see a problem with it. It's like saying there's no such thing as 'Nigerian cuisine' because the country didn't exist until about 50 years ago.

Developed a long time before Pakistan but it was mainly eaten by Muslim people in what is now Pakistan (not 100% sure on this)

This is kind of true, it's also the case with Mexican food in the USA and Turkish food in Germany.

Kebabs are a Turkish invention... however it was created by a turk living in berlin (or some other german city)

I remember because he passed away some time before the new year and it was all over the news.

I remeber him in the news but he invented doner kebab. Kebab is arabic doner kebab is nothing like kebab and was created to be as a fast way of eating /fastfood.

India as an area has always been made up of Seperate kingdoms, empires and country's.

There never was been a unified country in that area until british rule.

Ashoka unified a greater mass of land than the British around 200BC.


Posted from TSR Mobile

It lasted on that scale for just under 60 years and some of the most western regions seemed to have been thrown backwards and forwards over that time with the Bactrian Kingdom.

Even then an idea of a unified India did not exsist. Many kingdoms where still semi-independent, vassals or protectorates.

One of the biggest myths on the planet.. is the origin of the curry, lol.

For some reason or another, almost everyone around the world believe curry is Indian, so much so that they refer to it as 'Indian'.

Think about it rationally for a second... curry is mainly comprised of what? Chicken... Beef... Lamb etc? And India's dominant religion is what? Hinduism. Hindus hold meat to be sacred and would never, ever eat it. So we're not gonna assume Hindu's came up with a food for foreign visitors to come eat, are we?

Truth be told, curry (and all meat related dishes... samosas, kebabs etc) is very much of Muslim origin. And whilst India does have a Muslim population (Tiny compared to overall population) curry begun in Pakistan. The proof is everywhere you go, every curry you've eaten was made by a Pakistani chef, with Pakistani waiters etc. If someone were to go to India, they wouldn't find any of what they'd call curry unless they went to the tourist hot spots.

Kebabs came from Turkey, Curry from Pakistan (the list is endless) and yet the world labels these products as Indian. Sorry to rant a bit, but curious as to why anyone would think it was Indians. My great grand dad is still alive and in Pakistan, the last time I saw him he said if he went to India they wouldn't even begin to understand how to make curry.

--- Disclaimer, not a hate thread. I'm also well aware some areas of India will now have a curry eating tradition that goes back a long while (Because they'll be muslim) but of course I'm merely speaking of the origin -----

I'm sorry, but what type of person thinks that kebabs are Indian? And also your whole post is wrong because Pakistan was formed by the majority of muslims IN INDIA, so therefore curry IS in fact Indian.

Some people do think that...?

Pakistan was formed by the majority of muslims in India? You see what you're suggesting is India spawned Pakistan. WRONG. British India spawned Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. The only thing India did was appropriate the name, and therefore many people mix up BRITISH INDIA and MODERN INDIA which are very much different institutions despite sharing the same name.

Pakistan was not formed by Muslims in India, Pakistan was formed when the British relinquished control of British India and subsequently 3 countries were formed. Your logic is so flawed and you fail to distinguish between British India and Modern India.

If you went to India and had an authentic Indian dish, I'm sure it'd be very tasty. However it is nothing like Western curry in any way, shape or form. If you went to Pakistan and had authentic Pakistani cuisine, it'd taste/look/smell exactly the same as European curry, albeit, much hotter.

History lesson. Where does the name 'India' originate from? It originates from the Indus river (90% of which runs through the backbone of modern Pakistan) this river has yielded many famous civilizations such as the Indus Valley Civilization. By the time Britain got to the area, the area was referred to as the 'Indus' area. Strictly speaking this was only Pakistan, however Britain grouped in Bangladesh and India to form the name 'India'. The fact India has the name now is simply because Pakistan and Bangladesh opted not to use the same name, and India appropriated it despite having no or extremely little affiliation with the Indus river.

One of the biggest myths on the planet.. is the origin of the curry, lol.

For some reason or another, almost everyone around the world believe curry is Indian, so much so that they refer to it as 'Indian'.

Think about it rationally for a second... curry is mainly comprised of what? Chicken... Beef... Lamb etc? And India's dominant religion is what? Hinduism. Hindus hold meat to be sacred and would never, ever eat it. So we're not gonna assume Hindu's came up with a food for foreign visitors to come eat, are we?

Truth be told, curry (and all meat related dishes... samosas, kebabs etc) is very much of Muslim origin. And whilst India does have a Muslim population (Tiny compared to overall population) curry begun in Pakistan. The proof is everywhere you go, every curry you've eaten was made by a Pakistani chef, with Pakistani waiters etc. If someone were to go to India, they wouldn't find any of what they'd call curry unless they went to the tourist hot spots.

Kebabs came from Turkey, Curry from Pakistan (the list is endless) and yet the world labels these products as Indian. Sorry to rant a bit, but curious as to why anyone would think it was Indians. My great grand dad is still alive and in Pakistan, the last time I saw him he said if he went to India they wouldn't even begin to understand how to make curry.

--- Disclaimer, not a hate thread. I'm also well aware some areas of India will now have a curry eating tradition that goes back a long while (Because they'll be muslim) but of course I'm merely speaking of the origin -----

You almost make it sound like the idea or concept of Pakistan and Bangladesh existed before partition and before the British came. It's nothing about 'names', it was about separating a state across Muslim and Non-Muslim lines.

IVC culture civilisations immigrated to areas of Gujarat I believe.

In the end, the loose religious belief is what binded these folks before Muslims and Christians arrived. It was Hinduism from Bangladesh to Afghanistan with Afghanistan being the tip.

If there are so many similarities between the old Hindu kings of Indonesia and mainland Indians, there is bound to be a lot more similarity on the mainland between people. I think India was far more homogenous than people make it out to be. People also apply the standards of uncivilised western kingdoms at that time or later and apply it to India, as if everyday kings would invade each other for new land. I think the image of ancient India has been distorted by western historians.

Your point about curry makes sense. Haven't seen what my mum cooks on the menu before.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well when most people go to an INDIAN restaurant and they receive a menu of curries then it is probably from that.

I agree entirely with your point.

My point is, if something originated in an area which today would be country X - then its fair to say it's origin belongs to country X, even if at the time country X wasn't a country at all, was joined with many countries or even just a wasteland.