[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

Should we stop calling tikka masala, butter chicken, Madras curry powder, etc., as Indian?

[Colin2B]

Should we stop calling tikka masala, butter chicken, Madras curry powder, etc., as Indian?

What about spaghetti bolognese, ravioli etc, should we stop calling them Italian?. What about other national cuisines?

[alancalverd]

Food is much more important than politics.

Thanks to Idi Amin, most Indian restaurants in the UK nowadays are actually Bangladeshi. I'm fairly reliably informed that tikka masala and balti are now popular in the subcontinent. Chop suey and a fair number of Italian dishes originated in the USA. The good news on the pseudointernational  cuisine front is that Tesco no longer stock the British abomination of Hawaiian pizza.

I used to play with an Irish drummer. Returning from a gig one hungry night he asked the local takeaway proprietor "what part of China do you come from?" "We are from Hong Kong. More British than you, I think."

The self-service breakfast in the Kuala Lumpur Hilton had four counters: western, Chinese, Malaysian and Indian. I noticed that almost everyone chose "someone else's cuisine"  every morning.   

[Origin]

Should we stop calling tikka masala, butter chicken, Madras curry powder, etc., as Indian?

No.

[Petrochemicals]

most Indian restaurants in the UK nowadays are actually Bangladeshi.

Have mostly always been, something to do with the Hindu India being unkeen on   meat.

[alancalverd]

.....but no objection to Muslim Bangladeshis selling alcohol......

[Petrochemicals]

.....but no objection to Muslim Bangladeshis selling alcohol......

I believe that is why in the early days they where "bring your own booze".

[alancalverd]

Not so. Indian-owned restaurants have been a feature of British cuisine since the early days of empire, and the brewing industry is well established in India. Bangladeshi establishments seem to be a more recent phenomenon, many of which started as takeaways and low-budget cafes with no liquor licence. "Bring your own" can apply if the owner does not hold a personal licence to sell alcohol, and simplifies security and record-keeping, so it's a possible startup route. 

[Petrochemicals]

Not so. Indian-owned restaurants have been a feature of British cuisine since the early days of empire, and the brewing industry is well established in India. Bangladeshi establishments seem to be a more recent phenomenon, many of which started as takeaways and low-budget cafes with no liquor licence. "Bring your own" can apply if the owner does not hold a personal licence to sell alcohol, and simplifies security and record-keeping, so it's a possible startup route. 

The past flow of this thread reads as they where called Indian because of the Indian empire/subcontinent but where actually Bangladeshi due to the willingness to deal with meat. There is not much of a history of a bacon masalla due to it being forbidden by Islam ( Bangladesh) rather than beef madras being forbidden by Hinduism ( India). Hindus buchering the holy cow, I do not think so.

[alancalverd]

The older Indian restaurants in the UK predate Bangladesh and even the Partition. The Victorians enjoyed curry and probably exported kedgeree in its modern form to India (as it then was), combining the Scottish regiments' staple smoked haddock with a traditional Indian breakfast dish.