Comedian Trevor Noah recently spoke about how he perceived India’s gravy-rich dishes, admitting he often generalised them as “curry”. Sharing an anecdote on his podcast, What Now?, he said, “When I was in India, I would say curry and then people would say, ‘what are you talking about’.”To understand the term, Noah turned to chef Asma Khan, who said she had first encountered the word in England. “I never heard of the word until I came to England,” she said, tracing it to the South Indian word ‘kari’, associated with a sauce or relish.“Every dish (in India) has a name. Curry is not a name of anything,” Khan said, adding that she first heard the term in 1992. She argued that using one label for a country as diverse as India risks flattening its culinary and cultural identities.“Curry is a problematic word,” she further said, explaining that repeatedly using the generic term can obscure the distinctions that make Indian food unique.But is the word itself the problem, or how it is used? Indianexpress.com spoke to chef and food author Sadaf Hussain, who is working on a book documenting 100 popular and lesser-known curries from across India, to understand the term’s history and why recognising the distinct names, ingredients and traditions behind individual dishes matters.DISCLAIMER: This article is based on information from the public domain and/or the experts we spoke to.Where does the word ‘curry’ come from?The word ‘curry’ is generally traced to the Tamil word kari, which refers to a sauce or relish eaten with rice. Its entry into European usage was also influenced by the Portuguese term caril. Over time, the British popularised the word as a broad label for a range of Indian dishes, particularly those served with gravy.Story continues below this ad“ The word came from India, but the British stretched it to cover almost everything,” says Hussain.Colonial-era cookbooks and commercially marketed curry powders helped establish this simplified understanding of Indian cooking internationally. A diverse culinary landscape became easier to describe through a single, familiar term. However, Hussain does not believe that using ‘curry’ is inherently wrong.“I don’t think calling a dish a curry is automatically a bad thing, though. Categories help us find our way around unfamiliar things,” he says. The problem begins when the umbrella term replaces the dish’s name and identity.Why is calling every Indian gravy dish ‘curry’ limiting?“Calling everything curry makes very different cooking sound interchangeable,” says Hussain.Story continues below this adFor instance, Bengali shorshe maach draws its characteristic flavour from mustard, while nihari is known for its slow-cooked preparation and rich texture. Gujarati kadhi, meanwhile, is traditionally yoghurt-based and has a distinct flavour profile. “These dishes share neither a spice mix nor a method. Their ingredients, textures and histories deserve more than ‘something saucy’,” he explains. Is curry a colonial label? (Photo: Magnific)Should restaurants stop using the word ‘curry’?Not necessarily, Hussain argues. A familiar umbrella term can help diners navigate a menu, particularly when they are unfamiliar with Indian food. The solution is to pair it with the dish’s actual name and a brief explanation.“You can write ‘Bengali mustard fish curry’ on a menu and add shorshe maach beside it, which gives an unfamiliar diner an explanation and a name to remember,” he says.This approach makes a dish accessible without erasing its regional identity. It also encourages diners to ask questions about its ingredients, preparation and origins.Story continues below this adHussain draws a parallel with bread. Roti, sheermal and pav all fall under the broad category of bread, but their ingredients, preparation, uses and cultural associations differ.Has ‘curry’ developed an identity of its own outside India?The word has also acquired meanings beyond its colonial history. As Indian communities migrated and local cooks adapted recipes to available ingredients and tastes, distinct curry traditions emerged in countries such as Britain, Japan and across the Caribbean.“‘Curry’ has made Indian food recognisable around the world, and it has also encouraged the idea that our cooking revolves around spicy gravies and one universal curry powder,” Hussain says. At the same time, he notes, these adaptations have developed identities of their own and deserve recognition.This makes the debate more complex than simply declaring the word right or wrong. The term can be useful when describing a broad category or a culinary tradition that has evolved in another country. But it should not be treated as a substitute for the names of India’s individual dishes.Story continues below this adALSO READ | How to make restaurant-style gravy at home: Chefs share their top tipsWhy naming regional dishes mattersFor Hussain, the way forward is to retain the familiar term where it helps, while giving diners more information about what they are eating.“My answer is to keep the word and add detail to it. Use the dish’s name, say where it comes from and describe what makes it distinctive,” he says.He compares this to geographical indication (GI) tagging, which identifies products with qualities or reputations linked to a particular geographical origin. While naming a dish is not the same as securing a GI tag, both approaches can help foreground regional identity and provenance.DISCLAIMER: This article is based on information from the public domain and/or the experts we spoke to.