The ludicrous saga of India’s butter chicken war

Butter chicken, one of India’s best-known dishes and a favourite all over the world, is at the centre of an extraordinary curry war in India. Two rival restaurant chains have asked the courts to rule over who invented the recipe for  the signature dish, made with tender pieces of chicken in a tandoor oven, mixed in a rich tomato, cream and butter sauce. It’s a dispute that has captured the attention of the nation, with television stations covering the story and widespread debate across social media.

The 2,572-page lawsuit was brought by the Gujral family who run Moti Mahal, a famous Delhi restaurant that counts India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, as well as former US president Richard Nixon, among famous customers to have sampled its menu. The family claim that their grandfather, Kundan Lal Gujral, invented the curry in the 1930s when he opened his restaurant in Peshawar, in what is now Pakistan. They say the original was created by their grandfather to use up leftover tandoor chicken. After India was split during partition in 1947, the restaurant moved to Delhi. As well as seeking rights to the grand title of butter chicken inventor, the Gujral family is seeking some £188,000 in damages.

The rival claim to inventing butter chicken comes from the Daryaganj restaurant family. It counters that a late relative, Kundan Lal Jaggi, worked with Gujral to open the  Delhi restaurant in 1947, and that it was there that butter chicken was first created. This, they insist, gives them the right to describe their restaurant as home to the first serving of the dish, a right they claim to have trademarked in 2018.

Most popular

Ross Clark

Britain is living beyond its means

All in all, it amounts to a somewhat bizarre legal battle that’s piqued the interest of millions of ordinary Indians. It is a culinary mystery set in a series of curry houses, ranging from Pakistan to India, with a lengthy cast list of characters, some deceased, and all armed with conflicting accounts of what took place.

The hunt will be on for the crucial witness testimony of someone who can somehow link the butter chicken name to a dish they consumed decades earlier. Other than that, who can categorically state, without fear of contradiction, how the critical ingredients came together, where and when, and under whose expert instructions? Much of it comes down to circumstantial evidence at best. In the end, even the courts might have their work cut out to be sure who gave the world the butter chicken it now loves so much.

The next hearing has been scheduled to take place in May. Given the slow pace of India’s courts, the feuding restaurant families may have to wait some time for a final decision. The legal dispute is serious enough but at the same time faintly ridiculous. It seems just a touch mad to descend to such lengths over who has naming rights to a curry. Even so, the saga has inadvertently highlighted just how many Indians from all walks of life are caught up in – or eager to resort to – litigation, even in the most minor disputes.

India has an estimated 50 million cases pending in the  lower courts, highlighting the huge backlog in the system. The backlog has doubled over the past two decades, and at the current pace it would take more than 300 years to clear. There is a shortage of judges, with roughly 20 judges per million of population. Thousands of non-judicial staff positions in the courts remained unfilled, and lengthy delays to court proceedings are a regular occurrence. No one should hold their breath that a verdict in the butter chicken dispute will be handed down any time soon.

Indians have become accustomed to the lengthy wait for justice. It is a little like ordering a curry in a very busy restaurant: it never quite arrives because the place is chronically under-staffed and jam-packed with customers who have been waiting even longer.