“By an Indian breakfast by no means have to be understood that straightforward bread, tea, and butter, which compose an English one.” Edward Fane, the nephew of the British Basic Sir Henry Fane, devotes numerous time to describing breakfasts in his memoir of their travels via India, then a British colony, in 1858. Describing the morning meals of native English households, he notes that they embody meat and fish and eggs, in addition to “the everlasting curry and rice.”
That is what the British Raj generally ate for breakfast: breakfast curry.
You would possibly, like many individuals, consider curry as a bastardization of Indian meals, even a hurtful slur. India’s regional cuisines are vastly diverse, a number of, nuanced, scrumptious; rejecting curry is a approach of rejecting their oversimplification or appropriation. Curry is colonial, it gestures at India with solely the waviest of arms, it’s been co-opted since British individuals got here to India in 1608 and misheard “kari.” These sentiments have been echoed over the previous a long time, each by lecturers and even the nice actress and cookbook writer Madhur Jaffrey, who wrote, “To me the phrase ‘curry’ is as degrading to India’s nice delicacies because the time period ‘chop suey’ was to China’s.”
Given the rich history of chop suey, this can be a extra apt comparability than Jaffrey intends. Though curry is commonly described as an invention of British colonizers, Indians ate what non-Indians name curries lengthy earlier than the British arrived, and Indians throughout India nonetheless eat every kind of curry as we speak. Curry is not a colonial relic.
In colonial India itself, curry wasn’t solely the location of exploitation and domination; curry was a two-way avenue. Colonial meals was not only one homogeneous mulligatawny however a dynamic delicacies primarily based on shifting energy relations between the imperial authorities and their native contacts, relations, and employees. Curries are the dishes that finest encapsulate historian Cecilia Leong-Salobir’s argument that Anglo-Indian meals was a website of energetic negotiation between colonial officers and their Indian employees, particularly their prepare dinner. Colonial meals was a give-and-take marked by “mutual lodging.” British colonizers’ fondness for spicy and savory breakfast curries—so completely different from the sausages and eggs they grew up on—isn’t only a historic curiosity; it’s a testomony to Indian meals’s resistance to cultural domination.
Partially, it’s because the character of British colonial presence in India shifted considerably over the centuries, and together with it, colonial meals tradition. Within the late 1700s and early 1800s, British individuals working in India for the British East India firm have been largely single males. They ate largely Indian meals; to be extra particular, they have been closely depending on their Indian servants and so ate regional meals of the Bombay (Mumbai), Madras (Chennai) and Calcutta (Kolkata) Presidencies.
“Till the tip of the eighteenth century, there was little sense of racial superiority among the many British, whose most important motivation was revenue,” Colleen Taylor Sen writes in Curry: A World Historical past. “Firm males lived very similar to the native inhabitants: they spoke Indian languages; took Indian mistresses and wives; wore Indian garments; and consumed Indian meals ready by native cooks.” These meals centered the meals cooked and eaten by meat-eating Indian Muslim communities on the time, particularly creamy, Persianate qormas and qalias: curries.
As British rule formalized and stabilized, British colonial officers dwelling for many years in India began to name themselves Anglo-Indians (the time period now refers to their mixed-race descendants). Culinary fusions developed too, equivalent to kedgeree, which incorporates a lot flaked fish it’s just about nothing just like the dal and rice khichdi that it’s primarily based off of. However when it got here to curry, Nineteenth-century cookbook recipes appear surprisingly genuine. All these recipes name for entire spices or floor entire spices; they characteristic cooking strategies nonetheless widespread in India as we speak. Though some colonial cookbook authors did tamp down the warmth and spice of curries, this wasn’t uniformly the case. The Economical Cookery Guide’s korma requires eight entire purple chiles. A recipe for one masala from the military surgeon on the court docket of the Nizams of Hyderabad requires a whopping 12 inexperienced chilis.
These cookbooks display that for British imperial officers, there wasn’t only one generic, bastardized “curry” however a spread: vindaloos, Malay curries with lemongrass, so-called Hoosainee curries that usually require first the mincing and grilling of seekh kebabs. A few of these breakfast curries learn as distinctly Victorian (beef curry made with the trimmings of final evening’s roast), whereas others appear to be fairly correct representations of native South Indian breakfasts (“Pepper Water, or Rasam”), even when rasam is strictly talking neither curry nor breakfast. Within the separate chapter dedicated to breakfast curries within the Economical Cookery Guide, there’s fish curry, prawn curry, onion-based do pyaza curries, varied moilees of fish, egg, or potato. In a uncommon surviving cookbook written by a servant, Daniel Santiagoe enumerates nonetheless different regional curry variations, equivalent to, “Delhi Curry, Agra Curry, Curry à la Punjab… I actually… shall be glad to suggest Madras Curries as finest.”
As these buying and selling communities of Europeans in India shifted into direct rule by the British Military and colonial officers—with the institution of the British Raj in 1858 and Queen Victoria put in as Empress of India in 1877—these meals cultures shifted once more. Officers’ wives and kids joined them to ascertain everlasting residencies in India, and Anglo-Indian cookery turned way more Anglo, particularly as British wives took over “oversight” of the kitchen employees. British officers entertained one another over roasts and potatoes for dinner: “strictly English, no peculiarities” in line with memoirist Colesworthy Grant. However breakfasts stayed Indian. Anglo-Indians nonetheless ate curry—simply not when different British individuals have been round.
Maintaining colonial appearances demanded providing company tinned asparagus, imported butter, and dinner tables overflowing with British meals, and so breakfast curry turned, for Anglo-Indians, a sort of responsible pleasure. According to historian Mary Procida, one snobby British Military spouse was found by one other military spouse, “squatt[ing] on the couch demolishing a plate of curry-and-rice! The curry was clearly fiery with chillies … Then realising that she had been correctly caught having fun with the very stuff for which she and her set evinced such contempt; stuff that ‘the servants eat and which by no means appeared on her desk’ – the wretched girl uttered a shriek of dismay and fled from the room!”
Which brings us again to breakfast curry. The 1894 Mem Sahib’s Guide of Cookery states, “curry is eaten in nearly each family at the very least as soon as day by day, usually at breakfast.” Colonial official and family handbook writer Albert Kenney-Hebert elaborates: “The molten curries and florid oriental compositions of the olden time—so fearfully and splendidly made—have been step by step banished from our dinner tables; though a well-considered curry or mulligatawny… are nonetheless very ceaselessly given at breakfast.”
It’s unclear whether or not a phrase like “fearfully and splendidly made” is supposed as a real praise or sarcastic barb. And certainly a few of these Nineteenth-century colonial accounts of curry have been demeaning—writers name them “greasy” or “candy” or “so totally of an Asiatic character and style that no European will ever be persuaded to partake of them.” Some of the well-known authors of those cookbooks wrote anonymously beneath the moniker “the thirty-five years resident,” stressing his Indian bona fides. However apparently even 35 years in India didn’t heat him as much as Indian meals: He describes qorma curries as “fairly unsuited to European style” and gives an alternate recipe with out the dish’s attribute fragrant spices equivalent to clove and black cardamom.
However these dismissive writers have been the exception. You get the sense from studying colonial cookbooks that, for essentially the most half, the women and men who authored these texts did so as a result of they appreciated curry: they needed to be taught extra about it, and doc learn how to make it. An nameless colonial official’s spouse reports: “Ultimately, we merely beloved their curry and rice. It was scrumptious.”
Strikingly, the writers of those cooking manuals clearly knew the distinction between a Madras-style fish curry (tamarind, fenugreek seeds, mustard seeds, tomato, curry leaves) and a New Zealand Curry (“a lot appreciated”) of beef, potatoes, carrots, and two heaping tablespoons of Madras Curry Powder. These writers knew, the juxtaposition of those two recipes suggests, the distinction between genuine and inauthentic variations of Indian meals they usually appreciated them each for various causes. Regardless that the 35-12 months Resident insults the unique qorma in The Indian Cookery Guide, he nonetheless gives his readers a printed model of a extra typical qorma recipe alongside his personal blander “gentleman’s” one.
If something, breakfast curry reveals that by the late 1800s Anglo-Indians prided themselves on their talents to carry out either side of that hyphen. Paradoxically, because the British colonial authorities turned more and more institutionalized, underscored by more and more bigoted packages of racial distinction, curries turned a extra intimate a part of Anglo-Indians’ weight loss program. Breakfast curry was a break from conspicuous consumption, from demonstrating information of the most recent European eating developments, from the seemingly ceaseless work of entertaining that fashioned the cultural spine of British colonial life. Many British officers, it appears, have been nostalgic for the times of social integration. They have been nostalgic for curry.
After all, these cookbook authors and family handbook writers and memoirists weren’t doing the precise cooking. These recipes belong to the family supervisor, the khansama, or the prepare dinner (bawarchi) who ready breakfast curries alone, earlier than the British girl head of family formally took over the kitchen and family administration duties. The written file of colonial meals tells the story from the British aspect, however we will learn between the traces a special story: of Indian cooks whose expertise, and whose culinary traditions, overcome Anglo-Indians’ pretensions to overcome their eating tables all through, ultimately, the entire British Empire.
Most of as we speak’s dialog about curry and colonialism focuses on curry powder—how English businessmen cheapened India’s various masalas by marketing instead a single spice blend of mainly turmeric, how curry powder’s imperial unfold to Britain and its colonies served to incorporate the “exotic” subcontinent into the English body politic.
The unfold of curry and curry powder is commonly offered as one thing executed to hapless Indians by their colonizers. However curry additionally represents the sturdiness and adaptability of Indian culinary traditions, the expertise and affect of the cooks who made and make them. British individuals tried to emulate the style of Indian regional meals for hundreds of years, even when all they may muster was a pale imitation. Wanting nearer on the consuming patterns of the British Raj, the clandestine breakfast curries of Nineteenth-century India, permits us to raised perceive the historical past of colonialism with out celebrating it. Breakfast curry reveals us curry’s unceasing enchantment, even in a colonial empire loath to confess the prevalence of something created exterior England.
Gastro Obscura covers the world’s most wondrous food and drinks.
Sign up for our email, delivered twice a week.
