Thread 214132291

Be honest, our food is divine

>>214132291 (OP)
I like Indian food. It's only deranged chuds who shit on it. Obviously I wouldn't eat it everyday because IMO its too spicy but it still tastes good and has a lot of variety

With meat in it yes

I hate it. I don’t like spicy foods.

>>214132343
Regular indian food is just rice/roti with any vegetable curry. We dont eat butter chicken every day.

biryani is tasteless.

No. I hate stews. If it is slop, I am not eating. Try making food you can actually chew

>>214132291 (OP)
I love Indian food but I'll never buy it if it's not from at least a medium size restaurant

>>214132291 (OP)
>>214132472
is briyani arabs or indian?

>>214132467
idk I ate this and it was really good.

>>214132548
pakistani saar

>>214132291 (OP)
You really believe that?

i especially like the sauces
thank you indianon

>>214132291 (OP)
2spicy4me
Only have it occasionally and either get the usual stuff or make sure there's no pepper icon next to it on the menu, once made the mistake of getting something massively spicy (otherwise known as mild to Indians) and my stomach was in agony for days

>>214132291 (OP)
Indian food is good, BUT only if made by Indians outside of India in countries with some food hygiene laws.

>>214132291 (OP)
i like butter chicken a lot

>>214132291 (OP)
Slave food, perfected. No thanks.

I like chana masala and dal

>divine food
>indians are potbellied diabetics

>>214132291 (OP)
only if its made outside of india

>>214132291 (OP)
Indian food pales in comparison to proper Scottish scran, such as Chicken Tikka Masala

>>214135008
I've never seen indians eat this in india. Its always some weird slop soup instead or fruits.

>>214134764
Isn't it British cuisine?

>>214132291 (OP)
Yes they are great

>>214135074
Most popular naan in France is cheese naan but it's uncommon in India.
Indians in France is different than Indian food in India I noticed

>>214135122
No that's tikka masala

>>214132291 (OP)
Looks and tastes like poop

>>214132291 (OP)
from what I've had,it's good although indian food is too variegated to be lumped in together

Indian cuisine is often romanticized, but from a critical, comparative perspective, its shortcomings are obvious.

Overreliance on spice: Indian food substitutes complexity with intensity. Dishes frequently drown in chili, turmeric, and masala blends that overwhelm subtler flavors. Contrast this with Japanese or French cuisine, where restraint and clarity of taste are central.

Monotony of preparation: Most regional variations collapse into the same formula: overcooked vegetables or meat stewed with onions, garlic, and spice. Compare this to Chinese or Mediterranean cooking, which use stir-frying, steaming, roasting, braising, grilling—techniques that preserve texture and freshness.

Excess oil and heaviness: Indian gravies often float in oil. Frying dominates street food. There’s little of the lightness found in Vietnamese or Korean meals, where broths and pickled sides balance nutrition and palate.

Starch-centric: Rice and flatbreads form the bulk of most meals. Protein is secondary. In contrast, Middle Eastern or Latin American cuisines integrate legumes, grains, and meats in a more balanced way.

Poor presentation and standardization: Indian food rarely aspires to plating aesthetics or refinement. Compare an Indian thali to a multi-course kaiseki meal in Japan or even a simple mezze spread in the Levant—those traditions value both visual and culinary harmony.

Global adaptation exposes the problem: Outside India, “Indian food” reduces to a handful of greasy curries. Italian, Japanese, and Mexican cuisines, when globalized, retain much of their essence while elevating standards. Indian cuisine, meanwhile, often degrades further.

The truth is, Indian food reflects a history of scarcity and improvisation, not refinement. Its strengths—spice blends, vegetarian adaptability—mask deep structural weaknesses compared to other world cuisines that emphasize balance, innovation, and precision.

>>214132291 (OP)
Mole is better than curry tho

>>214137549
Too spicy for mleccha goras

I ate curry with meat once in a pricey Indian restaurant here and got a tiny portion of some of the worst dogshit I had my entire life. Maybe the local is to blame but Im insured to Indian food for a few years at very least

I like samosas, I want to try making them myself one day

Never tried Indian. If I see an immigrant in a food joint, I get liveleak sweatshop and street food flashbacks and I make a run for it, so an Indian hasn't even served me a kebab yet. I am sure it's great, but I am too afraid of getting RFK worm brain from someone who doesn't wash their hands and it's not just Indians. If a country has retrograde mentality issues, I am not trusting anyone from there with food.

>>214132291 (OP)
I once ordered chicken vindaloo and it had 2 chili symbols next to it. My arse was on fire.

>>214132291 (OP)
even though my digestive system cannot handle it and I don't enjoy heat in my food I really like indian food, at least the the one I can buy her

>>214132291 (OP)
once I ate curry in a seafood restaurant (ordered it because never had it so I waa curious). It was genuinely great. I now make my own curry by grinding my own morbillion spices. I wanna make some japanese curry roux

>>214137694
great post

Indian food is good but we can see what eating that shit every day does to a mfer, huge pot belly and 0 muscle mass

>>214137694
Fuck me, you're forcing me to say it for the first time ever
>—
Thanks, ChatGPT

>>214137694
It’s a misconception that Indian food always overwhelms with spice intensity. While chilies and masalas are important, many dishes—like Gujarati kadhi, Kashmiri yakhni, or South Indian rasam—rely on delicate seasoning and balance rather than sheer heat. The philosophy is not about masking flavors, but layering them, often in ways that highlight rather than suppress the core ingredients. Comparing this to French “clarity” or Japanese “restraint” misses the fact that Indian culinary aesthetics prize complexity and contrast instead.

Indian cooking encompasses far more than “stewing with onions and garlic.” Regional techniques include tandoor grilling (Punjab), steaming (idlis, dhoklas, pithas), shallow-frying (panjeeri, poha), roasting (bhartas, dry vegetable sabzis), slow-smoking (dum pukht), fermenting (dosas, pickles), and sun-drying (papads, vadis).

Rice and flatbreads are indeed staples, but so are lentils, chickpeas, kidney beans, pigeon peas, yogurt, paneer, fish, and goat. India is one of the few cuisines where vegetarian protein is deeply integrated and varied, from Bengal’s shorshe ilish (fish and mustard) to Punjab’s rajma-chawal.

A thali may not resemble a Japanese kaiseki meal, but it embodies an aesthetic of abundance, harmony, and balance—sweet, sour, bitter, pungent, salty, astringent—all in one spread. Regional presentations like banana-leaf meals in Kerala or the ornate Mughlai platters historically offered at royal courts also reflect care for presentation, just with different cultural priorities. Standardization in India is deliberately resisted; cooking is more artisanal, rooted in family tradition rather than codified “haute cuisine.”

Indian cuisine shouldn’t be judged by a narrow slice of restaurant curries abroad. Its true breadth reveals a system of culinary philosophy—layered spicing, grain-legume complementarity that reflects refinement of a different but equally valid kind.

>>214132291 (OP)
I really like Indian food but I prefer making it at home because I have gotten food poisoning from multiple Indian restaurants

never had indian food. i dont generally go to foreign food places because i dont know what to order. what would you recommend trying?

>>214139584
Sir, this is precisely the kind of romantic self-deception that keeps Indian cuisine trapped in mediocrity. You wax eloquent about “layering” and “philosophy,” but the reality on the plate is usually grease, repetition, and blunt force masala. Gujarati kadhi? Sweetened buttermilk with chickpea flour—hardly refinement. Kashmiri yakhni? A pale broth that would be laughed out of a French kitchen. Rasam? Sour, watery, barely more than a digestive aid. Sir, if this is “subtlety,” then the bar is set underground.

You parade “techniques”—steaming idlis, frying poha, smoking biryani—as if the rest of the world doesn’t also steam, fry, and smoke with greater elegance. French confit, Japanese tempura, Chinese tea-smoking—these make our efforts look crude. Dum pukht? A pot sealed with dough and left to stew. That is not ingenuity, it is laziness masquerading as tradition.

Proteins? Lentils and chickpeas endlessly recycled, paneer masquerading as cheese, goat hacked into bony fragments. Yes, vegetarian protein integration is “varied,” but it is also monotonous, endlessly drowning in turmeric and cumin. Compare this to the disciplined restraint of Japanese sashimi, the precision of French sauces, the sophistication of Chinese banquets. We boast of “abundance” in a thali, but abundance without refinement is chaos.

You defend the lack of standardization as artisanal charm. I see it as the absence of rigor. Other cuisines codified technique, perfected form, elevated craft to art. Ours clings to grandmother’s vague handfuls of spice and pretends this imprecision is authenticity.

Indian cuisine is not philosophy; it is coping mechanisms dressed up in rhetoric. It overwhelms, it bludgeons, it repeats. Compared to the clarity of French cooking, the finesse of Japanese, the balance of Chinese—Indian food is, at best, a noisy crowd with no conductor.

>>214140301
Sir, it is easy to dismiss Indian cuisine by caricaturing its extremes, but such reduction misses the depth and intent behind it. Subtlety in Indian food does not mean blandness; it means balance within complexity. Gujarati kadhi is not “sweetened buttermilk” but a calibrated play of sour, sweet, and spiced—a palate logic very different from French broths. Kashmiri yakhni’s delicacy is not a flaw but a cultural preference for fragrance over fat. Rasam, far from being “watery,” is a layered broth of tamarind, pepper, and herbs, revered precisely because it stimulates digestion and appetite. By judging these dishes by French standards, one risks confusing difference with deficiency.

To dismiss dum pukht as “laziness” is to ignore its technique: a sealed slow-cooking method that retains aromatics and creates incomparable tenderness, much as confit does in France. Idlis, poha, dhokla, kebabs, chaats, smoked meats, and fermented batters showcase methods refined for local climates, ingredients, and nutritional needs. That these overlap with global techniques does not make them crude—rather, it affirms their universality.

Paneer is not “masquerading” as cheese; it is a fresh cheese with a distinct role. Legume-grain pairings, derided as monotony, are actually a cornerstone of complete nutrition, centuries before modern dietetics explained why.

Presentation, too, follows cultural logic. A thali is not chaos but a carefully composed spectrum of the six tastes recognized in Ayurveda. Where French cuisine values linear refinement, Indian cuisine values simultaneous abundance, a pluralism of flavors on one plate.

Far from being “coping mechanisms,” Indian cuisine reflects a long civilizational dialogue with climate, agriculture, philosophy, and ritual. It does not seek to mimic French clarity, Japanese minimalism, or Chinese banquets—it articulates its own vision of balance and abundance, no less valid, and no less refined.

>>214140427
Sir, enough of this sanctimonious drivel. Every time someone points out the flaws of Indian cuisine, you hide behind “civilizational dialogue” and “Ayurvedic balance.” This is not scholarship, it is propaganda. You sound less like a critic and more like a Ministry of Culture pamphleteer.

Do you realize, sir, how your rhetoric echoes Hindutva cultural nationalism? All this insistence that India must never be measured by external standards—this is not analysis, it is protectionism. You accuse me of “confusing difference with deficiency,” but that is the same line the soft-nationalist intelligentsia uses to insulate mediocrity. Rasam is a thin digestive broth, not a “layered masterpiece.” Dum pukht is peasant stewing sealed with dough, no matter how grand you make it sound.

And paneer—your “fresh cheese with a distinct role.” This defense reeks of desperation. Bland cubes drowned in masala are not a tradition worth elevating. It is the hollow rhetoric of Delhi food writers who mistake repetition for depth.

Your language is textbook apologism: the liberal relativist terrified to call weakness what it is, or the chauvinist who insists every deficiency is hidden strength. Which are you, sir? A postcolonial scholar clinging to relativist jargon, or a closet nationalist peddling saffron-tinted pride? Either way, you are defending the indefensible.

Indian cuisine is not “another vision of refinement.” It is excess without control, repetition without growth. To elevate chaos into philosophy is dishonest. And your attempt to dismiss critique as “Eurocentric bias” exposes your affiliations: partisan of mediocrity, whether in the lecture hall of postcolonial studies or on the rally stage of the cultural chauvinists.

>>214140529
Sir, critique need not devolve into caricature. To acknowledge the philosophy and diversity of Indian cuisine is not propaganda, nor an echo of nationalism—it is a recognition that culinary traditions cannot be judged solely through foreign frameworks. Calling this “protectionism” assumes that French, Japanese, or Chinese standards are universal yardsticks, when in truth each cuisine has evolved its own aesthetic priorities. Difference is not automatically deficiency.

Rasam is indeed light, but its value lies in harmonizing sour, spicy, and herbal notes, functioning as both nourishment and medicine. To dismiss dum pukht as “peasant stewing” overlooks the refinement of slow-cooking sealed aromatics—techniques that mirror global practices of culinary patience. Paneer, too, is not simply “bland cubes”; in dishes like saag paneer or paneer tikka, its role is textural and absorptive, complementing rather than dominating.

What you call “excess without control” is in fact a deliberate embrace of plurality: the thali seeks to present many tastes at once, not in linear succession but in simultaneous harmony. This is not chaos but a different grammar of refinement, where abundance itself is structured. To suggest that valuing this approach equates to ideological chauvinism is a false conflation—celebrating diversity of culinary aesthetics need not collapse into politics.

No cuisine should be insulated from critique, and Indian food, like all others, has weaknesses—oil-heavy restaurant curries, uneven globalization, or lack of codification. But to equate those flaws with inherent mediocrity is unjust. Indian cuisine does not ask to be exempt from standards; it asks only that the standards applied recognize multiplicity of form. To understand it on its own terms is not apologism—it is fair analysis.

>>214140571
Sir, you bloody bastard, don’t you dare cloak your cowardice in the language of “fair analysis.” You prattle on about “multiplicity of form” and “different grammar of refinement” as though these empty phrases can hide the truth: Indian food is monotonous, oily, and endlessly recycled. You stand there waving the flag of “plurality” like some desperate cultural clerk, terrified of admitting that chaos is chaos, not “structured abundance.”

Rasam is thin soup—stop dressing it up as “harmonizing sour and herbal notes.” Dum pukht is a pot left to sweat under dough—it’s peasant food, not “global refinement.” Paneer, sir, is bland curd hacked into cubes, no matter how many times you invoke saag paneer like a priest chanting at a funeral.

And you—lecturing me about “false conflation”? No. You’re the one collapsing critique into this sanctimonious plea for cultural relativism. I say again: this is the language of nationalist apologists, whether saffron-robed or cloaked in academic jargon. You sound like a pamphlet writer for the BJP one minute and a postcolonial studies hack the next.

You accuse me of caricature, but it is you who caricatures honesty as bias. Your slippery evasions, your cowardly relativism—they disgust me. I will not temper my words: Indian cuisine is inferior, repetitive, and sloppy, and you defending it with this verbose garbage only proves your complicity in propping up mediocrity. Sir, you are not an analyst—you are a bloody bastard gatekeeper of failure.

>>214140630
>>214140571
ask chat gpt why padang & Javanese food is actually dogshit

>>214140696
Oh for God’s sake, as if this debate wasn’t already suffocating under enough pointless apologetics, now a Javanese voice barges in? Sir, I am already furious tearing through the hollow defenses of Indian food, and you think I have patience left for gudeg and rawon? Gudeg is candied jackfruit slop, fit for a child’s palate, not a cuisine worth defending. Rawon is mud in a bowl—don’t insult me by calling that refinement.

You irritate me with this detour. Nobody asked for Javanese cuisine to take the stage. Your sugary stews, your greasy tempeh, your endless sambals—they’re not contributions, they’re distractions. This is not your argument, not your battlefield. I have no bandwidth for this provincial intrusion.

So listen carefully, because I will not repeat myself: take your gudeg, your rawon, your fried monotony, and piss off out of this debate.

Caring about food is a brownoid trait. You're supposed to eat whatever is most nutritious.

It's good but you should really start washing your hands while cooking. I get food poisoned every other year from eating indian food.

>>214140696
I like nasi padang

I want to believe they are writing this on their own trying to mimick AI