[Fat Guy]

Five years ago, Floyd Cardoz and Danny Meyer quietly unleashed Tabla on the New York restaurant scene. I don't think anybody – even those who, like me, loved the place from the start – predicted that it would become one of the world's most important restaurants. I'm not sure, even today, that Tabla's significance is widely appreciated.

To be sure, it was always a good restaurant. And, in the stubborn manner of all Danny Meyer restaurants, it underwent consistent improvement – steady but, sometimes, frustratingly slow. But it always felt like a whimsical, almost accidental place, especially to those familiar with the backstory: Tabla was something of an unintended consequence of historic preservation. The wall dividing the ground-floor space in the landmark Art Deco Metropolitan Life building on Madison Park left a niche just large enough, after the mega-project of Eleven Madison Park (which was supposed to be the splashier of the two restaurants) was conceived, for a boutique restaurant sporting a seemingly whimsical concept: Indian fusion.

Today what was once called Indian fusion has acquired what I think is a more appropriate moniker: New Indian cooking. What was once iconoclastic is now one of the most significant movements in modern cuisine. And Tabla is at its nexus. Asian fusion reached its apex in the 1990s, but India has long held the pole position when it comes to mastery of spices – even the Southeast Asian cuisines such as Thai, Malaysian, and Vietnamese, which utilize spices to such great effect, ultimately look to India as the progenitor of curries and other complex spice blends. And spices represent, to me, the most neglected frontier of Western cuisine. New Indian cooking, though not as sizeable a movement as Asian fusion, is not only about Indian cuisine, and not only about the effect of Western technique and ingredients on that cuisine, but also about what India has to teach Western chefs about an entire category of flavors. Although he was the student and Gray Kunz was the mentor, back in the days when Floyd Cardoz was at Lespinasse he taught Kunz a thing or two about spices. And if you have something to teach Gray Kunz about spices, you have something to teach everyone. I think in the final analysis, the West will learn as much or more from India as from Asia.

As Tabla was making its presence felt and slowly working through its early dysfunction over its self-perception (are we an Indian restaurant or what?), its perception in the Indian community (it's not Indian enough), and its perception in the Western culinary community (it's too Indian), there were other restaurants throughout North America working independently towards common evangelical goals. In Vancouver, Vikram Vij was operating the renowned Vij's, which I've been calling the best Indian restaurant in North America since my August 2001 “Vancouver dining comes of age” feature in the National Post. Although, it was my wife Ellen who had alerted me to its existence and insisted on its excellence after a trip she had taken to Vancouver without me for a piece she was doing for Arthur Frommer. In Boston, Thomas John was developing the message at Mantra. More recently, in New York, the team of Suvir Saran and Hemant Mathur have been introducing a new level of rigor to Indian cuisine here, first at Diwan, then at Amma, and soon at Devi. And of course Madhur Jaffrey, the polymath actress, chef, and super-genius, has been laying the foundations of New Indian cooking since the rest of these guys were in diapers.

Which brings us to a special dinner last night commemorating Tabla's fifth birthday, when all the aforementioned chefs came together to demonstrate where New Indian cooking is today.

Such events need to be viewed on multiple levels. There are the dishes themselves, which are rarely as precise and well executed as they would be on a chef's home turf: the banquet production requirements, the unfamiliar kitchens, and a host of other factors are always limiting. There is the overall meal, which in the best instances is far more than the sum of its parts. And then there is what the event means in a larger context, which can range from nothing to quite a lot.

There were some delicious dishes served last night. Suvir Saran and Hemant Mathur were given the task of awakening guests' palates with a series of hors d'oeuvres that included a bracing shrimp rasam with buttermilk and little florets of Mancurian cauliflower (we all need this recipe). They were also responsible for continuing the momentum through the first course: “sprouted beans chat, crispy spinach millefeuille.” It was a remarkable dish, the crisped leaves of spinach serving as the layers in a savory postmodern Indian take on the traditional French pastry. This gave way to Madhur Jaffrey's jumbo shrimp in a sauce featuring fennel seeds, mustard seeds, and curry leaves. I don't think there's a word for the color of this sauce, which fell somewhere between peach melba and coral, but in honor of it I'd like to paint my whole house, my car, and my dog. I asked her if I could have a gallon and she laughed, thinking I wasn't serious. Thomas John, for his part, offered caramelized red snapper with spiced yucca, accompanied by the most vibrant salad of fava beans and watermelon. Jaffrey is a tough act to follow, but John's little bits of watermelon managed to penetrate the fog that her haunting sauce had left over the audience. Floyd Cardoz countered with crispy spice-crusted soft shell crabs over a medley of pickled ramps, long squash, bacon, and crab curry. Luckily I was seated next to a non-soft-shell eater so I got to eat two portions. Finally, like an invading army, Vikram Vij's ghee-braised short ribs (pause to consider that: short ribs braised in clarified butter!) with cinnamon and red wine curry flattened the terrain, and then Helen Turley's 2002 Zinfandel “Duarte” came along to beat the crap out of anybody left standing. I felt violated. And happy.

I can't imagine being a pastry chef in this situation, playing to an exhausted house that has had its palates collectively pounded on by the entire flavor range of the Penzey's spice catalog, but Jehangir Mehta, the pastry chef at Aix, served up one of the best desserts I've had in ages: a salty caramel tapioca tart with pomegranate paan reduction, marinated mango, and citrus ice cream. The saltiness of this dessert was a stroke of genius, activating resources of flavor perception I thought I'd lost hours before. Sitting with my back to Tabla's central architectural feature, the oculus, I felt upon my first bite as though I might suddenly tumble backwards through the hole and onto the stone floor below.

There were certainly flaws in most of the dishes, along the lines of what I mentioned above – I'd love to try each of them with the home team cooking. But I feel it is necessary to allow some latitude in order to perceive the overall meal experience, which was terrifically enjoyable and wildly synergistic.

But what was far more significant, to me, than the meal itself was what it represented. Being at Tabla last night felt like being in a moment, one of those moments you know you'll return to time and again as history unfolds and gives us more perspective. There was a sense of being there, while something important was happening. It could be seen on the chef's faces: what had been a fragmented community of kindred spirits, and had slowly developed into a movement, last night gelled into something more along the lines of a school of thought. And it was inspiring to see the audience, almost evenly divided between Indians and non-Indians, breaking bread together as a new gourmet community. It was quite a night, one I'll never forget.

[Varmint]

I often wonder whether the American public will completely embrace the traditional Indian cooking or this more refined, sophisticated style. Something tells me it's the latter, and we'll start to see this type of restaurant in cities other than NYC. In the meantime, I'm just glad I'll be eating dinner at Tabla later this month. Thanks for the report.

[JosephB]

Fat Guy, on Jun 8 2004, 07:02 AM, said:

Asian fusion reached its apex in the 1990s, but India has long held the pole position when it comes to mastery of spices – even the Southeast Asian cuisines such as Thai, Malaysian, and Vietnamese, which utilize spices to such great effect, ultimately look to India as the progenitor of curries and other complex spice blends. And spices represent, to me, the most neglected frontier of Western cuisine. New Indian cooking, though not as sizeable a movement as Asian fusion, is not only about Indian cuisine, and not only about the affect of Western technique and ingredients on that cuisine, but also about what India has to teach Western chefs about an entire category of flavors.

Thanks Steven for a very interesting article.

I have not traveled to Asia or India, though I suspect that most Indians would be troubled by the "New Indian" label. What’s wrong with the great cuisines of India as is?

I'm not convinced from your description that "New Indian" isn't simply Indian fusion. Years from now, will you be writing about how "New Indian" reached its apex in the first decade of this century?

[Fat Guy]

Joseph, we still speak of "Nouvelle Cuisine," don't we? We speak of "Modern Art," right? It's possible for a label to be anchored to a time and place. Surely, there will be many future phases of Indian cuisine worldwide, and they will all need to be named. But I think we are in the equivalent of the Nouvelle Cuisine era for Indian cuisine right now, so New Indian seems appropriate as a label.

And certainly, nothing is "wrong" with the currently great cuisine of India. But I don't live in India. My concern is primarily with how Indian cuisine will be translated to the West. And while I love traditional Indian cuisine and have sampled some pretty good specimens around North America as well as in the UK, Singapore, and the various other best cities for Indian food outside of India, I find the New Indian cuisine personally exciting.

The reason I'd rather not call it fusion is that the whole concept of fusion is amorphous. Where does tradition end and fusion begin? Is not all cuisine fusion cuisine? Please don't make me trot out the old tomatoes-in-Italy and chocolate-in-France arguments. Please.

[Jinmyo]

JosephB, on Jun 8 2004, 08:59 AM, said:

I have not traveled to Asia or India, though I suspect that most Indians would be troubled by the "New Indian" label. What’s wrong with the great cuisines of India as is?

Certainly nothing. In particular to the Indian taste.

But India has yet to develop a restaurant culture as all of its greatest cooking occurs in households, both aristocratic and otherwise.

In the restaurant culture of the West, any higher level Indian restaurants need to reinvent the cuisine in order to leave behind the association with steam tables.

[docsconz]

Fat Guy, on Jun 8 2004, 09:40 AM, said:

Where does tradition end and fusion begin? Is not all cuisine fusion cuisine? Please don't make me trot out the old tomatoes-in-Italy and chocolate-in-France arguments. Please.

Had enough of this one recently, have we? But how authentic is it?

Seriously, an excellent article, Steven. Sounds like Tabla was the place to be - a very exciting event.

Also nice to hear that the Saran/Hemant duo has specific new plans in the works. They more than Tabla opened my eyes to "New Indian" cuisine at Amma. The time I ate at Tabla I was disappointed. Looking forward to hearing more about it.

[tommy]

suvir/hemant's new place will be at 18th and 5th, sometime in september, iirc.

Quote

Being at Tabla last night felt like being in a moment, one of those moments you know you'll return to time and again as history unfolds and gives us more perspective. There was a sense of being there, while something important was happening.

i got that feeling as well, and couldn't put it into words. but FG did, so i don't have to stumble through it.

The night started out “normal” enough. Communal seating added a bit of that feeling that you were all there for the same reason. Being seated at a table of food writers and restaurateurs certainly reinforced that vibe. But, it didn’t hit me until danny meyer gave a nice speech. and then there was the excitment in the chefs' voices and faces, as they came out and said a few words. There was passion in the air for sure. it seemed to me to be a very very good day for "new indian cooking".

[Pan]

That was terrific writing, Steven, but can "New Indian" be a style that comes out of the U.S.A.? Nouvelle Cuisine was born or at least popularized in France, was it not? Are there restaurants in Delhi or Bombay serving food like what's served at Tabla?

[Fat Guy]

Chefs working in the US were the driving force behind Asian fusion. You can now go to Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan and find restaurants that are imitative of the restaurants of Jean-Georges Vongerichten, Nobu Matsuhisa, and Gray Kunz. In fact you can find Nobu in Tokyo, Vong in Hong Kong, and about a million fancy Asian fusion hotel restaurants throughout Asia that Kunz and others consulted on. Is that at least a partially compelling analog? It's the best I can offer, because I'm by no means knowledgeable about cuisine in India.

[bpearis]

tommy, on Jun 8 2004, 10:33 AM, said:

suvir/hemant's new place will be at 18th and 5th, sometime in september, iirc.

from today's NY Times...

Quote

SUVIR SARAN and HEMANT MATHUR, who cooked at AMMA on East 51st Street, will open their own place, DEVI, in late summer at 8 East 18th Street. Their partner, RAKESH AGGARWAL, owns the BALUCHI'S chain.

[mongo_jones]

well, this would be "new indian" in the american context. there's all kinds of "new" indian happening in india that people in the u.s don't know anything about (and "manchurian cauliflower" isn't it--if anything that's a traditional dish at this point; ditto for madhur jaffrey's shrimp dish as described). i'd warn against the temptation to only recognize novelty when it happens in the west. just because american gourmets are now encountering sometihng other than chicken tikka masala for the first time doesn't mean that innovation or "novelty" have only just reared their heads in the indian culinary context(s). of course the dominant culture (or even just a solipsistic one) usually only recognizes things on its own turf and on its own terms.

This post has been edited by mongo_jones: 08 June 2004 - 11:01 PM

[mongo_jones]

Jinmyo, on Jun 8 2004, 07:40 AM, said:

But India has yet to develop a restaurant culture as all of its greatest cooking occurs in households, both aristocratic and otherwise.

not quite accurate. there's a HUUUUGE restaurant culture in india. it just isn't coded the way it is in the u.s or europe. and it isn't simply the case that the greatest cooking occurs in households, but more accurately that different genres of cooking occur in households and restaurants--with the kitchens of the rich falling closer to the expensive restaurant end of the spectrum. of course this is slowly changing (as in the genres beginning to mix).

[mongo_jones]

Fat Guy, on Jun 8 2004, 07:40 AM, said:

The reason I'd rather not call it fusion is that the whole concept of fusion is amorphous. Where does tradition end and fusion begin? Is not all cuisine fusion cuisine? Please don't make me trot out the old tomatoes-in-Italy and chocolate-in-France arguments. Please.

why not just call it indian-american cuisine? especially since all these chefs (with the exception of madhur jaffrey) have made their mark in north-america and have had their cooking/approaches marked by it. or does "indian-american" sound too low-falutin'?

edit to add:

Quote

Jehangir Mehta, the pastry chef at Aix, served up one of the best desserts I've had in ages: a salty caramel tapioca tart with pomegranate paan reduction, marinated mango, and citrus ice cream.

perhaps a better term for something like this (and for the best of what is usually called "fusion" as well) might be "cosmopolitan cuisine". what you describe above is essentially a french (?) dessert with indian ingredients. i note this not to carp about authenticity but to point out that to label it merely "new indian" would be to limit/elide its more complex geographical genealogy. it isn't just new "indian", it is also new something else. what distinguishes it from other "new" things happening in india is that not everyone working in india is necessarily looking at the west as the only point of reference--indian tastes/flavors/cooking are colliding with all kinds of other south-east asian cuisines as well. an american might not recognize this as "new indian" because you can't look at it and isolate its accents the way you might be able to with something that is clearly a take on a tart or a millefeuille. i hope this clarifies further why i think it is limited to only give the latter kind of thing the moniker "new indian"--especially in an article that throbs so palpably with the pleasure of discovery and which seeks to ascribe to this discovery the heft of historical significance.

This post has been edited by mongo_jones: 08 June 2004 - 11:45 PM

[Pan]

Fat Guy, on Jun 9 2004, 08:04 AM, said:

Pan, on Jun 9 2004, 05:28 AM, said:

Steven, I think "New Indian Cooking in America" is a more accurate term than an abbreviation of "New Indian."

They are both accurate. It is New Indian Cooking. In America. Were it in France, it would still be New Indian Cooking. But in France. Were it in India, it would still be New Indian Cooking. But in India. I'm sure there are as-yet-unconnected pockets of this movement everywhere there are significant concentrations of Indian chefs: the UK comes to mind as a candidate.

Steven, I'm confused. In "The Art of Eating in New York and some reflections on authenticity," I thought you were arguing that whatever is cooked in New York is authentic to New York. So is it New York cuisine, Indian cuisine, or both? Or did I misunderstand?

[jschyun]

So what's wrong with calling it fusion? Is it not fusion between Indian cuisine with a Western sensibility? The reason I ask is because "New American Asian" is generally called fusion. Despite the fact that the people mentioned by tommy call it "New Indian Cooking", isn't still fusion cooking?

[Jason Perlow]

jschyun, on Jun 9 2004, 11:43 AM, said:

So what's wrong with calling it fusion?  Is it not fusion between Indian cuisine with a Western sensibility?  The reason I ask is because "New American Asian" is generally called fusion.  Despite the fact that the people mentioned by tommy call it "New Indian Cooking", isn't still fusion cooking?

Because Asian Fusion originated outside of the US. In Europe, I think.

This is all semantics though. Its interpretive Indian food cooked in the US, with ingredients native to this country. So its appropriate to call it New Indian Cooking -- In America.

[MobyP]

Which leads to an interesting question - the abundance of 'Indian cooking' in the UK has (I'm told) very little to do with actual Indian cooking, and more to do with satisfying the English post-colonial palate (nothing like returning from several hundred years in India to cold-mutton and boiled beef to ruin your day).

The Chicken tika marsala to which Mongo refers is an invention which was created in the UK for the English. So you could say that the often poor, occasionally sublime Indian cuisine we take for granted is already the misnomered New Indian Cookery. Although let's not go to Mumbai and ask what they think about it.

Of course, as with Italian food, the search now goes in two directions simultaneously; the first is towards regionality and authenticity, and the second towards experimentation and authenticity. I agree with Jason as to the moniker.

Recently there was an event in the UK called the The American Food Revolution. Of the chefs who were invited to come over from the states, approximately half were about as American as Schwarzenegger. But this goes towards the idea not only of the US co-opting cultural or aesthetic practices from other countries (as being the guardian of parts of those transplanted cultures, it sees itself as the beneficiary), but oppositely the inate desire of immigrants to those shores to be viewed as American. For those who chose not to be included, or co-opted, the practice smacks of an odd sort of franchised colonialism. Still, to return to my earlier point, I think the American Food Revolution was about as American as New Indian Cooking was Indian.

The meal sounded fantastic. I wish I'd been there.

[Andy Lynes]

This may be new in America, but in the UK, Indian chefs have been fusing their traditional cuisine with Western techniques for around 10 years. Atul Kochhar was head chef of Tamarind when it opened in 1995 and won a Michelin star there 3 years ago before going on to open his own restaurant Benares.

In my hometown of Brighton, British chef Steven Funnell has run a tiny restaurant called The Black Chapati for over 15 years that began by serving modernised Indian food and now serves a pan-Asian menu.

More recently, Iqbal Wahhab employed 2 Michelin star chef Eric Chavot as consultant for his Cinnamon Club restaurant to bring some French flair to the restaurant's Indian menu.

[Jason Perlow]

Andy Lynes, on Jun 9 2004, 12:31 PM, said:

This may be new in America, but in the UK, Indian chefs have been fusing their traditional cuisine with Western techniques for around 10 years. Atul Kochhar was head chef of Tamarind when it opened in 1995 and won a Michelin star there 3 years ago before going on to open his own restaurant Benares.

In my hometown of Brighton, British chef Steven Funnell has run a tiny restaurant called The Black Chapati for over 15 years that began by serving modernised Indian food and now serves a pan-Asian menu.

More recently, Iqbal Wahhab employed 2 Michelin star chef Eric Chavot as consultant for his Cinnamon Club restaurant to bring some French flair to the restaurant's Indian menu.

I'm curious if the British approach to New Indian cooking is different from the American one. My guess is that it differs in seasoning based on the local palate and in localized ingredients.

[VeryApe77]

I'm no expert on the subject (and certainly don't want to imply any lack of talent or innovation on the behalf of the chefs who were involved in "New Indian Cooking In America" event, which sounded amazing), but thank you Andy for mentioning that this kind of thing has been going in the UK for a while now. It was the first thing that leapt to mind when I looked at this thread.

[Suzi Edwards]

i spent some time in bangalore earlier this year. it's certainly not the first stop you'd make on a culinary tour of india, but i ate some good food.

the overriding theme to me was that indian food in india is very different to the india food in the UK. but indian food from the takeaway in the UK is very different to the restaurants that andy mentions. i've only eaten in zaika so i can't comment more on this. this is hearsay slightly, but my indian md went to zaika and had never had food like that anywhere in india....this might just be that she she's not really a seasoned reataurant goer, so i won't make too much of that.

back to my bangalorean experiences. i would strongly disagree with jinmyo's contention that "...India has yet to develop a restaurant culture as all of its greatest cooking occurs in households, both aristocratic and otherwise." While there are many dishes that you would only eat at a wedding, there's a hugely strong culture of chaat in bangalore specifically which as far as foodstuffs go, would be mainly eaten in restaurants. while a pani puri eaten streetside isn't in anyway as evolved as the sort of stuff steve ate at tabla, as a taste and restaurant experience, it's still valid.

[Andy Lynes]

Whilst I hold Steven's opinions about nearly everything in very high regard, I think he is way off beam with some of his comments in his first post on this thread. I am in no doubt that he is entirely accurate when it comes to North America, but to say that Tabla "one of the world's most important restaurants" is simply grandstanding.

If Steven is attempting to place the restaurant at the "nexus" of New Indian on a worldwide basis, which is how the piece reads to me, I think he is over reaching himself. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to see that New York is catching up on the ground breaking work of Indian chefs working in London. I'm attempting to get a comment on this from the aforementioned Atul Kochhar which I will post here if I am successful.

[jschyun]

Fat Guy says:

Quote

Chefs working in the US were the driving force behind Asian fusion.

Jason Perlow on why "New Indian" is not simply fusion cooking, unlike Asian food as treated with American techniques/ingredients:

Quote

Because Asian Fusion originated outside of the US. In Europe, I think.

Eh?

In any case, though "fusion" is a somewhat general term, isn't it more applicable than "New Indian"? I don't understand how this is "New Indian" and not simply fusion cookery. Indian food in India is not being changed. You're simply adapting some Indian foods and maybe techniques with American ingredients and maybe some techniques as mentioned early in this thread.

Personally, I don't want to start an argument or anything, but I do think it is a bit pompous to call it "New Indian".

--I just reread JosephB's comments early in this thread. He said it better than I can.

This post has been edited by jschyun: 09 June 2004 - 10:24 AM

[Moopheus]

MobyP, on Jun 9 2004, 09:24 AM, said:

Which leads to an interesting question - the abundance of 'Indian cooking' in the UK has (I'm told) very little to do with actual Indian cooking, and more to do with satisfying the English post-colonial palate (nothing like returning from several hundred years in India to cold-mutton and boiled beef to ruin your day).

Wasn't that sort of thing already happening in India, during colonial times (Indian chefs working for Englishmen and creating dishes to suit their tastes)?

[Fat Guy]

Andy, the title I gave to this thread was "New Indian Cooking In America, at Tabla and beyond." I have no doubt there are important New Indian restaurants in the UK -- that would seem almost inevitable. However, as to your chronology, I should note that Vij opened in 1994 and was in Vancouver making his case since 1989, and I have no idea when Madhur Jaffrey wrote the first of her 15 cookbooks. The question, though, is do these New Indian restaurants in the UK strive for something akin to a self-conscious movement, or are they just cooking what they cook? I'm asking that as a question.

Only a few restaurants at any given time have significance beyond just being great restaurants. By reaching beyond its walls, and by making itself a nexus of a culinary movement, and by doing so with a great deal of credibility and humility -- chosing to share its podium with like-minded chefs -- Tabla joins an elite group of restaurants that think in terms of national and international movements.

I do think it is one of the world's most important restaurants, much more important than just another Michelin three-star would be. Tabla stands for something big, and I would suggest that nobody who reviews the assembled culinary talent standing with Tabla the other night could conclude otherwise.

[jschyun]

It just occurred to me that the organizers of the event called it "New Indian Cooking in America" simply to distinguish this sort of fusion type of cooking, with Indian Indian food, for the event. Perhaps we could get enlightened here with a comment from an organizer?

[tommy]

Andy Lynes, on Jun 9 2004, 01:15 PM, said:

I am in no doubt that he is entirely accurate when it comes to North America, but to say that Tabla "one of the world's most important restaurants" is simply grandstanding.

walking away from that dinner you might have been convinced of the same, for editorial purposes at least.

[Suzi Edwards]

Fat Guy, on Jun 9 2004, 10:50 AM, said:

Andy, the title I gave to this thread was "New Indian Cooking In America, at Tabla and beyond." I have no doubt there are important New Indian restaurants in the UK -- that would seem almost inevitable. However, as to your chronology, I should note that Vij opened in 1994 and was in Vancouver making his case since 1989, and I have no idea when Madhur Jaffrey wrote the first of her 15 cookbooks.

i think madhur jaffrey might be more in the uk/indian food continuum than the us one

click

that said, tabla's definitly on my list next time i am in ny





(edit cos i can't spell)

This post has been edited by tarka: 09 June 2004 - 10:59 AM

[Fat Guy]

jschyun, on Jun 9 2004, 01:50 PM, said:

It just occurred to me that the organizers of the event called it "New Indian Cooking in America" simply to distinguish this sort of fusion type of cooking, with Indian Indian food, for the event. Perhaps we could get enlightened here with a comment from an organizer?

If I can get permission, I will post the two-page brochure they sent us home with. It contains a concise statement of principles and bios of the chefs.

[Pumpkin Lover]

Sigh. I'm at a desk without Lexis-Nexis. In any case, I'd like to note that Mark Bittman, either last year or the year before, did a lovely travel piece in the Times about restaurants in New Delhi. As Tarka said in disagreeing with Jinmyo, there *is* a definite, strong, and flourishing restaurant culture in India. Just as chefs in America try to improve and create new ideas upon old ideas of "American" or "New World" or "Mediterranean" or "whatever" cuisine, chefs in India are doing the same to their home cuisine. I can't remember if Jeffrey Steingarten hit upon these points in his Vogue piece on North Indian vegetarian cuisine.

Sorry if this has been said before.

Also, please read this wonderful article by Monica Bhinde in the Wash Post. It's about food served during a Hindu wedding celebration. She mentions the cuisines served: Swiss, Italian, Japanese, Continental, Mongolian, etc. She states, "The rush to the Teppanyaki cooking station with grilled Japanese food and the salad bar with more than 20 types of salads cued me into what was hot that night." I wonder how Indians would know and love this kind of food if it did not exist in some kind of restaurant culture in India. As well, there are obviously tons of new ideas and influences hitting India now, thus influencing what some of the posters here are calling "New Indian" cuisine. Like others, I hesistate to label the phenomenon of the development of Indian cuisine by that name, but ya know, whatever floats your boat.

One more thing, and I don't mean to poke a dead horse, but: in re-reading Mongo's posts, I sense a cultural gulf between Westerners who are analyzing this phenomenon of "New Indian" cuisine, and Indians or diasporic Indians (like me) who are doing the same. As Mongo stated in one of his posts, the dishes served at the Tabla dinner, while new to an American diner, are familiar or traditional to Indian diners (for example, when I went to Amma with a Bengali friend, she noted that the cauliflower was exactly like a dish she could eat in Bengal). Amma's focus on regional Indian cuisine was new and huge in America--it broke down India on a plate in a way that restaurants in the US haven't done before. Now, there were flavors and combinations that I wasn't familiar with when I ate at Amma. But, for my Bengali friend to tell me that the cauliflower was familiar to her was interesting. I was eating something new, and she was eating something old or familiar. I think that that is what is happening with this "New Indian" stuff right now. Some of the ideas that are considered "new" in this cuisine may actually be regional and also unknown to the American palate. Thus, it's "new." But, for Indians, it may not be so new at all, and when we're all trying to label cuisines and ideas with just one or two words, we need to consider who exactly we're talking to.

Dang. Sorry about all that.

BTW, FG, I'm jealous. You made Jaffrey's shrimp sound like heaven.

Edited to add a parenthetical insert

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Lover: 09 June 2004 - 11:32 AM