Anonymous wrote:My husband is Indian (born in India) and he loves Rasika as do many other Indians we know. It is somewhat "fusion" in its approach, but definitely still something many Indians would like (there are always Indians eating there).
The term "fusion" is one that makes me immediately suspicious of whether an Indian restaurant serves authentic Indian food. It is really an attempt to say we are not the "typical" Indian restaurant that serves conventional dishes. Interestingly, the term "fusion" is rarely used in the better restaurants in India (other than the more trendy ones) because there really is no need to do so to try and market the food there given that they are catering to Indian customers.
Having been to Rasika on a couple of occasions, most of the clientele were non-Indians and there was a smattering of Indians. Given the clientele it is not surprising that the food is geared to American taste and in the process is less than authentic. On one of the occasions I went to Rasika it was a business dinner and certainly my American colleagues raved about the food. One other Indian who was with the group - and I - did not share that opinion.
I have generally found the mark of authentic food at any ethnic restaurant is how many of the customers are from that particular ethnic group.
But adapting ethnic food to suit local taste is not unusual - for example, some of the best Chinese food I have had was in India where the food is adapted to Indian taste and is sometimes referred to as "Indo-Chinese"! I don't think the average Chinese person would view what is served there as authentic.
So my comments are not a knock on Rasika per se - but I still think it is a stretch to refer to it as authentic Indian cuisine.