The Origin of Indian Restaurants

Bizarrely, twice in about 2 days I ran across a reference to a restaurant called Veeraswamy in London being the first Indian restaurant-- not in England, but anywhere; there weren't restaurants in Indian culture until after this point.

Seems a bit doubtful to me-- hasn't there been a need for food for travelers since the dawn of time, and innkeepers cooking a big pot for same?-- but anyway, here's how the columnist Jonah Goldberg describes it (I can't remember where the other reference was):

At our favorite Indian restaurant in the world, Chutney Mary on Kings Road in London, the maitre d’ told us something I’m having a hard time believing. He explained that Veeraswamy in London (owned by the same people) is the oldest Indian Restaurant in London. That’s entirely believable. But he also said it was the oldest in the world. I blanched at that and said, “You must mean outside of India?”

He said, no, no. It’s the oldest Indian restaurant anywhere — and it was opened in 1927. He said that there was no culture or economy for restaurants in India prior to British colonization. The only such establishments catered to the British, mostly at swanky hotels. People just didn’t eat out. (He also said the Indians were too busy trying to get rid of the British. Maybe, I thought, they could have done this quicker if they’d had a nice meal.) I found this hard to believe. But then I said: Well, they must have had food stalls and the like.

And he said, no, not really. He said that the food stalls came with the British exodus. The enormous refugee flows between India and Pakistan resulted in the need for a lot of food on the go. Now, food stalls are commonplace everywhere in India.

I hope I do not do anything to bolster the credibility of Jonah...

I cannot add to the central premise of this thread, but as background, I do happen to have a copy of Veeraswamy's menu from September 4th, 1947. If interested, I s'pose Mike or someone could upload a scan.

So, the menu offers two "fares", Indian and European as well as tea.
The Indian menu was mulligatawny soup, Madras chicken curry (translated as Murgi ka gosht); curried prawns (ghinga ka salan); curried fish (machi ka salan); minced beef curry (khima [keema] salan) and vegetable curry (tarkari ka salan). The menu also included sambals, paratta (parantha?) and choice of sweets. The English menu was, well very English, pea soup, roast lamb, triffle...

There are two addresses listed, which makes me think there are two locations 99-101 Regent and 20 Swallow.

Rob

Very interesting for a number of reasons. "Veeraswamy" is a South Indian name (Tamil most likely). Indian cuisine outside india has been predominantly Punjabi until recently. One theory I've heard is that it was because the migrant labor, or laborers that were willing to migrate (I'm not sure if the 'laborers' were the cooks themselves) tended to come from the Punjab region. The 'Punjab' region (around the Punjab river) is part of modern India and Pakistan, to give you an idea of the (generally available) cuisine (Indo/Pak) - that "Veeraswamy" probably popularized.

As to the 'first' Indian restaurant (at least in Britain) google yields these
(googling for 'oldest' Indian restaurant yields essentially links to Veeraswamy)

From http://www.hemispheresmagazine.com/roving/2002/london_curries.html

and in 1809 Britain’s first Indian restaurant, the Hindostanee Coffee House, opened in Marylebone.

However, the cuisine remained obscure until Edward Palmer, great-grandson of Indian royalty, opened the fashionable Veeraswamy restaurant on Regent Street in 1927—a site it still occupies today.

Great-grandson of Indian royalty - Edward Palmer

And from It's curry, but not as we know it (the Guardian UK, 2002)

Veeraswamy wasn't the very first Indian restaurant in Britain; in 1809, Sake Deen Mahomed, an Indian who had married an Irishwoman, opened Deen Mahomed's Hindustani Coffee House in London. (It doesn't seem to have caught on: by the time he died in 1851 at the age of 101, the restaurant had closed and bankrupted him.)

Interesting, although do we know if the Hindostanee Coffee House served anything actually resembling Indian food? Or food, for that matter? It's so early in the history of restauranting that you can't be sure about anything.

That said, I never believe that the proclaimed first of something was really the first, there's always debate about such things. What Veeraswamy more likely was was the first one to be successful enough to influence others to open them and to have created an audience in London for such food.

In any case, given the vast numbers of Englishmen (and their memsahibs) who lived in India, employed native cooks, etc., I feel certain that the taste for Indian food among at least a certain portion of the (white) English population goes back much farther than 1927.

I'm not a food historian, though at least for now I'll sorta play one on the internet.

It is pretty true that there isn't an established restaurant culture in India, and that the origins of most restaurants are in hotels serving non-locals, that is in some ways why you see a somewhat standard indian restaurant menu. Even today you see many restaurants in India called "Hotel . . .". . In some of the larger cities, there exist "clubs" somewhat similar to English models which serve food and porbably date to the colonial period.

I think that this is in some part due to the historical lack of a middle-class, who would serve as the natural customers for such ventures. Instead, it being a highly stratified society you found upper class folks who could afford personal cooks and thus wouldn't need to leave the house. Adding to this situation is the central concern of "purity" not just of food, but of the person cooking the food in indian cosmologies, folks would be unlikely to go out and eat food of uncertain origins. There were however, and continue to be caterers, such as the Waza's of kashmir who often passed the craft down for generations (extending beyond the date mentioned earlier) and would cook for large gatherings which were typically held privately (such as weddings)

I find the claim that there were not food stalls or at least indepedent food establishments somewhat more problematic, especially when temple food is factored in. It is somewhat commonplace to buy offerings to give to deities and priests at temples. Often there exists a cootage industry of vendors outside major temples, some of which have been in existence hundreds of years, willing to supply these offerings (for a really evolved example of this see Benares). These offerings can range from flowers, to coconuts, to prepared sweets. My bet is some of these sweet vendors predate the restuarant mentioned above.

Additionally, some temples offer prasad, or food that has been sanctified by prayer, though not technically offered in exchange for cash, there usually is a nominal donation involved. For example, the halva at the golden temple in Amritsar is especially famous.

When I have a little more time I'll go through Achaya's "historical companion to Indian food" and see if I can find out a little more

In terms of the punjabi bent mentioned by sazerac, I had heard that does come from the time of partition, when punjab was teh area most affected by partition and large numbers of punjabi migrants flooded delhi and started setting up small-scale food enterprises

one other little note - one of items on Rob's old menu "Madras chicken curry (translated as Murgi ka gosht)" I'd have loved to try, because the literal translation of the hindi is "lamb of chicken", though maybe it was written by tamils unfamiliar with hindi

zim wrote:I'm not a food historian, though at least for now I'll sorta play one on the internet.


I find the claim that there were not food stalls or at least indepedent food establishments somewhat more problematic, especially when temple food is factored in. It is somewhat commonplace to buy offerings to give to deities and priests at temples. Often there exists a cootage industry of vendors outside major temples, some of which have been in existence hundreds of years, willing to supply these offerings (for a really evolved example of this see Benares). These offerings can range from flowers, to coconuts, to prepared sweets. My bet is some of these sweet vendors predate the restuarant mentioned above.

Yes, what about dhaba's, when did they start? Also, what about the street food in Bombay/Chowpatty. How long's that been around?

One thing I did not point out before on the menu, but no one picked up on the somewhat oddity of the beef curry. Surely ground beef is a popular dish on the sub-continent, but beef is not something one associates with Indian food if you know what I mean.

Vital Information wrote:Yes, what about dhaba's, when did they start? Also, what about the street food in Bombay/Chowpatty. How long's that been around?

One thing I did not point out before on the menu, but no one picked up on the somewhat oddity of the beef curry. Surely ground beef is a popular dish on the sub-continent, but beef is not something one associates with Indian food if you know what I mean.

can't answer the questions about the origins of dhabas or street stall in chowpatty, but I'm sure that the beef is just a substitution for ground lamb or goat more commonly found in India.

I know I've substituted beef for lamb before in making keema

Re: Veeraswamy

Zim wrote:one other little note - one of items on Rob's old menu "Madras chicken curry (translated as Murgi ka gosht)" I'd have loved to try, because the literal translation of the hindi is "lamb of chicken", though maybe it was written by tamils unfamiliar with hindi

Maybe anyone (not necessarily Tamil) not familiar with Hindi and assuming that 'gosht' meant 'meat', in the way that the chinese word for meat is rou which is pork, and other meats are (name of animal)+rou. Otherwise maybe "Murgi ka gosht" was an early relative of Turducken?
Anyhow, given the menu, it seems unlikely that Tamilians were involved. The 1947 menu at least seems partial to gravy dishes (salans) - ("curries"?) which suggests at that point, Awadh cooking (Lucknow), not simply Punjabi dishes. The use of the term "Madras" may simply have been a marketing move, not a nod to Chettinad (Tamil non-vegetarian) cooking.

Vital Information wrote: One thing I did not point out before on the menu, but no one picked up on the somewhat oddity of the beef curry. Surely ground beef is a popular dish on the sub-continent, but beef is not something one associates with Indian food if you know what I mean.

That association, of course, presumes that all Indians are Hindoo . I'll refrain on further digression on the meat eating habits of Hindus (staunch or otherwise) here. (But VI, I understand what you mean)
Back to the possible Lucknow connection - there are a lot of Muslims there and that again may explain the beef dishes.

I find it interesting that in England, particularly Birmingham, famous for its numerous Balti curry houses, these are operated for the most part by Bangladeshis (and predominantly Muslims)

------
Re: "Origins of Indian Restaurants"

As the internet food historian, Zim, pointed out, although modern 'restaurant' culture didn't exist, inns surely did (which may be why the term "hotel" was/is used), as did temples and the associated food industries.
Also special professional "Chefs" who cooked for large gatherings - weddings, festivals, etc. - have been around for a long time, with different 'chefs' depending on the scale of the event or even what was being prepared. Professional sweetmakers have been around for a long time as well.
------

Veeraswamy may possibly be the oldest continuously operating Indian restaurant in the world. FWIW.

The Oxford Culinary Symposium should be insightful - I hope attendees will post.

Back to the possible Lucknow connection - there are a lot of Muslims there and that again may explain the beef dishes.

I'd say it's more likely that there are a lot of Englishmen in England and that explains the beef dishes, circa 1947. I wouldn't assume any point about authenticity or derivation too strongly, versus assuming that smart marketing was willing to say or alter anything to lure customers to exotic eating, a la American Chinese food of the same period.

Zim mentioned the caste problem, or rather "the central concern of "purity" not just of food, but of the person cooking the food in indian cosmologies." Here's what Stewart Lee Allen's In The Devil's Garden (admittedly a book which relishes a good story over strictest accuracy) has to say:

Beneath the four main castes are the so-called Untouchables... [description of their lousy lot in life follows] ...The upside for the Untouchables is that they can eat anything they want without losing social status... Compare that to the menu of poor, pitiful Brahmins, who not only must follow a strict vegetarian diet, but also must abstain from things like garlic and onions*... Some are not even allowed carrots or tomatoes because their origin in foreign lands means they have no caste and are therefore 'untouchable.'...

We'll skip the part about purifying the table with cow dung, but it's well worth reading for the story of the complications that resulted when the goatherds in one village tried to invite the barbers over for dinner, which would have made the barbers too impure to cut Brahmin hair. You can see how this sort of thing would have made it hard to open a restaurant without doing something to disqualify every potential customer. Catering, which presupposes that the caste problem has already been sorted out for the occasion, would be a far easier business (especially once you had a reputation for trustworthiness; not surprising that generations of the same caterer probably served generations of the same families).

* Not unlike their Boston Brahmin brethren, back in the day, at least the garlic part.

Mike G wrote:

I'd say it's more likely that there are a lot of Englishmen in England and that explains the beef dishes, circa 1947. I wouldn't assume any point about authenticity or derivation too strongly, versus assuming that smart marketing was willing to say or alter anything to lure customers to exotic eating, a la American Chinese food of the same period.

I do not really buy that. After all the Euro fare on the Veeraswamy menu includes lamb. Shepards pie not withstanding, hamburger is not a part of the standard English diet. I think that the rendition of this dish is simply a reflection of the typical Mogul version of keema, i.e., keema is often made with beef.

I surely defer to Sazerac or Zim or (anyone else) with better knowledge, but my reading of Veeraswamy's menu is not so much that they've created new Anglosized dishes like chop suey, but rather they've taken certain dishes outta context and served them because they seem accessible.

Rob

Mike G wrote:I'd say it's more likely that there are a lot of Englishmen in England and that explains the beef dishes, circa 1947.

No. Assuming that the cooks were from the Indian subcontinent, I find it hard to imagine a Hindu cook (regardless of caste) was churning out beef dishes.

Mike G wrote:You can see how this sort of thing would have made it hard to open a restaurant without doing something to eliminate every potential customer.

In temple settings, the offering (prashad) would be suitable for everyone.
I don't see turning some customers away as a problem, given the population density. I don't think there was any beef (:twisted:) with lower castes eating higher caste food (given access, that's another issue), only the other way around. The society, stratified as it was, would have had appropriate 'eating establishments' of various sorts, perhaps catering only to specific sections. Whether these 'eating establishments' fit the definition of 'restaurant' is surely a more complicated - more than just semantic - issue.

Madhur Jaffrey in the original edition of her first book writes about the beef issue, and notes that (at that time) there were 60 million Muslims and 12 million Christians, which means a fair market of people not constricted. Also she says that while there were occasional (and perhaps still are?) outcries for banning the slaughter of cows, buffalo were never mentioned. Buffalo was apparently sold by word of mouth, but also served in "steak" restaurants. She claims to have seen Hindus happilly eating sizzling buffalo steak.

sazerac wrote:No. Assuming that the cooks were from the Indian subcontinent, I find it hard to imagine a Hindu cook (regardless of caste) was churning out beef dishes.

That said, this historical tidbit from Veeraswamy's site gives a better idea of why beef may have been on the menu:

It was established in 1926 at the same site by the great grandson of an English General, and an Indian princess.

Mike G wrote:That said, this historical tidbit from Veeraswamy's site gives a better idea of why beef may have been on the menu:

It was established in 1926 at the same site by the great grandson of an English General, and an Indian princess.

I don't understand what the 1926/27 founding by Edward Palmer (see earlier post) had to do with the 1947 ownership and/or menu including beef. There's nothing wrong or non-Indian with beef being on the menu. As VI points out, the dishes suggest some level of 'authenticity'.
Also its only going to be on the menu if the chef allows it...

Semi-irrelevant tidbit: India is the only country in which McDonalds does not serve any beef products.

My point, which wasn't as evident as I thought, is that if it was founded by an Englishman and his Indian wife, and was quite possibly still run by them 20 years later, then I wouldn't be surprised if it had the sort of things on the menu that Englishmen in India would have enjoyed-- such as beef dishes. (I assume that it would have been the rare British officer who, having hired local cooks, would have foregone beef on his dinner table just because of their religious laws.) But hey, all I know about the colonial experience in India I learned from Flashman novels....

Indeed, the influence of the British Empire on Indian culinary proclivities can hardly be overestimated; witness, this can of pudding, produced in Middlesex and purchased last night at an Indian grocery outside San Diego.

Treasure Island(Clark and Elm?) carries Spotted Dick(as discussed on TV's "Kept"). I picked up a can a few weeks back to terrify guests.

But do they have boiled baby?

India always had places that served traveling pilgrims and merchants, students and others living away from home, and no doubt housewives who wanted a break from cooking. Hindu temples served, and still serve, vegetarian meals to pilgrims. Texts from the Mauryan dynasty (300 BC to 300 AD), a period when India was the wealthiest country in the world, describe public eating houses, taverns, and shops that served cooked meats and sweets. Later European visitors to India marveled at the abundance of markets, shops and bakeries “where almost every variety of cooked food and uncooked victuals could be bought at a reasonable price.”


Western-style restaurants first came to India in the late 19th century. Around 1890, Federico Peliti, an Italian confectioner, opened his eponymous restaurant in Calcutta (the capital of British India from the early 18th century until 1912), which became a favorite lunch spot for the city’s business community. After World War I Angelo Firpo opened his restaurant on Calcutta’s main street, Chowringhee. Pelit’is, Firpo’s, Trinka’s and Fleury’s (the last two pastry shops) remained centers of Calcutta social and culinary life for both British and affluent Indians until the 1950s and 1960s. Their menu consisted mainly of Western-style dishes, plus a few quasi-Indian dishes such as mulligatawny soup and curry.

Veeraswamy does, I think, rightly lay claim to being the oldest INdian restaurant in the world. I'd love to see a copy of the 1948 menu. Could someone make a PDF file and post it?

Regarding beef, official government statistics show that beef is by far the most widely consumed meat in India, surpassing goat many times. Who eats this is something of a mystery. Beef is the preferred meat in dishes such as biryani and nihari

Susruta, Welcome to LTH!

Feleti's I hadn't heard of and I suspect it closed long ago (I'm curious to know when) Some pictures I found here. Hard to tell when the "Today's" picture was taken - judging by the cars or rather the absence of other types of cars, possibly over ten-twelve years ago. Calcutta lost Firpo's long ago too. Both Trinca's and Flury's are still open but it is well past their glory days; they aren't that very old however.

Although other cities may have old establishments, it may be interesting to look at those in Calcutta - at one time the capital of the British Raj.
Another Calcutta 'institution' would be the Grand Hotel, now the part of the Oberoi group (I think it was bought by the Oberois in the early 40's; no idea when it was built or opened) . I suppose with a little stretch it's in-house restaurants may qualify for this thread.

After MikeG quoted from it I looked up the Veeraswamy website, and they claim, "Veeraswamy is the oldest surviving Indian restaurant in the U.K, and possibly the world." (as I suspected in my earlier post). Still I think an additional qualifier is needed - "known" - maybe between the words "oldest" and "surviving" (at least for any "in the world" claim). There may very well be some teeny or not so teeny place still extant quietly going about it's business somewhere...

I'm most intrigued by then name "Veeraswamy." It'd interesting to know the background behind this.

susruta wrote:Regarding beef, official government statistics show that beef is by far the most widely consumed meat in India, surpassing goat many times. Who eats this is something of a mystery. Beef is the preferred meat in dishes such as biryani and nihari

Very interesting, what's the source and date on these statistics? As for beef being the preferred meat, is this in general for biriyani and nihari, or restricted to either within India or without?

I revive this thread because of a review of an interesting (apparently) new book called Curry: A Biography. Cruising the information superhighway this morning, I came across the below-referenced review from The Guardian. The review makes the book sound interesting enough to pick up, I think.

But what caught my eye was the reviewer's reference, to wit: "In one of the best chapters Collingham charts the process by which Indian food entered Britain and carved out for itself a very special place in our hearts." Although the reviewer is woefully uninformed about this thread and its various speculations and discussion relative to the "first" Indian restaurant, the book may not be. Still, the review is informative reading and the book should be too.

For the interested reader: http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1556478,00.html

Gypsy Boy

London Honors Sake Dean Mahomed, Man Who Founded the City's First Curry House in 1810