Is Chicken Tikka Masala Truly a British Curry?
The answer is a resounding NO.
Chicken Tikka Masala—a dish combining fatty meats with heavy double cream—raises significant health concerns. In another article, I highlighted that some butcher shops sell trimmed meat fat to curry restaurants, where it’s melted and added to dishes for enhanced flavour. While this practice makes curries taste richer, it contributes to long-term health risks and is part of the reason why the UK’s curry industry is facing what is now being called the "Great British Curry Crisis." According to a Michelin-starred chef, health-conscious, gym-going young people are avoiding curry houses due to the high-fat dishes served there.
Health concerns related to fatty foods are not new. In the early 1990s, the NHS launched a campaign with posters displayed in GP surgeries warning of the risks associated with fat in meat. The message was clear: "A minor surgery will save you from major surgery," urging people to trim the fat from steaks to avoid future heart issues.
Imagine if an English Breakfast were served abroad but slightly modified—for example, in a Cypriot resort, where a core ingredient might be replaced or a new one added, and it was branded a “Cyprus Breakfast.” This would feel unprofessional and disrespectful to the original dish. Chicken Tikka Masala follows a similar path.
The tale, often shared without question, recounts how a Scottish customer ordered chicken curry in a restaurant, only to complain that the dish was too dry or spicy. A Pakistani chef, in an inspired improvisation, added double cream and tomato soup before sending it back, thus “creating” Chicken Tikka Masala. The dish grew popular, and a Scottish politician, later the British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, became a fan. On an official visit to India, Cook famously requested this “Indian” dish, only to find that no chef in Delhi had ever heard of it. On his return, he declared Chicken Tikka Masala a British dish, claiming it as if the UK were adopting an orphan. Yet no one knows who the Pakistani chef was, who the Scottish customer was, or which restaurant created that first British curry.
This narrative lacks any acknowledgment of British colonial history and its longstanding ties with the Tamil people, the true custodians of the curry tradition. In this context, Robin Cook’s well-meaning endorsement is a prime example of misplaced enthusiasm. Tragically, it has diluted the “Indian curry” brand, leaving Britain’s curry industry in crisis.
Centuries ago, European settlers in Tamil regions had a similar experience, finding Tamil curry dishes with the newly introduced chili quite spicy. Instead of adding heavy cream, they used coconut milk—a natural ingredient that remains a staple in Tamil curry today. This adaptation marked the beginning of a culinary renaissance in Tamil cuisine, sparked by Portuguese explorers who introduced chili and other New World vegetables to Tamil regions in the 16th century.
Ironically, the UK’s interpretation of “curry” remains from a pre-chili era, untouched by these post-16th-century influences. British curry’s origins lie neither with the British nor with the Tamils, whose word “curry” entered the English language via the Portuguese. British colonial forces, especially Robert Clive and his Tamil soldiers, introduced curry to Bengal (now divided between Bangladesh and India) in 1757. Later, a man from Bengal, who served as a surgeon in Clive’s army, came to the UK and opened the Hindustani Coffee House in London in 1810—the country’s first curry establishment. The term "Hindustan" then referred to the Mughal-ruled regions, including Bengal, part of which Clive’s forces had first captured.
In an ironic twist, after introducing curry to Bengal, the British saw Bengali immigrants reintroduce it to the UK. Today, over 90% of “Indian” curry houses in the UK are owned and operated by individuals from Bangladesh, which became an independent country only in 1971, lacking a historical connection to curry. In a recent Financial Times article, titled “The Great British Curry Crisis,” Oli Khan, spokesperson for the Bangladeshi Catering Association, stated that curry in the UK is now British rather than Indian or Bangladeshi. This claim reveals a lack of historical understanding about the origins of the dishes served.
It’s important to note that Clive’s forces, being a military contingent, primarily focused on non-vegetarian curry dishes. This focus explains why the majority of curries served in the UK today are non-vegetarian. However, when demand for vegan, vegetarian, and plant-based options surged, the curry industry was unprepared. In reality, Tamil curry, with its ancient roots, offers a rich variety of vegan, vegetarian, and plant-based including millets as well as non-veg dishes that align with modern dietary preferences.
Much like the global use of the English language doesn’t strip its origins from England, the widespread enjoyment of curry worldwide doesn’t mean it has been separated from its Tamil heritage. Curry remains a vibrant tradition among Tamils in their homelands and abroad, much as English remains connected to its roots.
The British curry industry is in urgent need of revitalization. With a documented 3,200-year history supporting Tamil curry traditions, the British Tamil community stands ready to help. Refocusing on authentic Tamil Curry is the most credible way to restore customer confidence and stabilize the industry during this crisis.
Representing Tamils from traditional homelands and beyond, the British Tamil community embodies the full cultural and culinary heritage of Tamil Curry, making it more accurate to name this dish “Tamil Curry” rather than mislabelling it as “Indian” or attributing it to another region.