So for dinner yesterday, among other things, I bought a Baklava. It’s the first time I’m having it and I wonder if I’d be wrong if I were to call it the king of sweets.
Thinking about it, calling the Baklava king may not be all that inaccurate – given that I now think that the Indian sweet Badusha is derived from the Baklava. I haven’t checked anywhere but my guess is that “Badusha” comes from “Badshah” or king, and refers to the Mughal emperors who came from Central Asia.
And the Baklava, we know, comes from the region that broadly includes Turkey and Central Asia.
And I think the reason the Badusha, unlike the Baklava, lacks dry fruits is that it’s usually mass-produced – it’s a common sight at wedding receptions, and costs cannot be allowed to soar. Maybe, you might have South Indian Sweet Shops selling Baklava soon. You never know.
On a side-note I wonder why the Jahangir (Jangri in Tamil – clearly a derivative of Jahangir; imarti in Hindi) is called Jahangir. Wonder if it came to Karnataka in Emperor Jehangir’s time.
One thought on “Baklava”
Basically baclava is baked filo pastry, and badurshah is deep fried..the reason both have that flaky texture is because they are loaded with fat before baking/frying 🙂
yes, Turkish sweets seem very similar to some Indian ones..halava, baclava, etc..must have come with the Mughals..you notice that the indigenous South Indian sweets are usually rice or lentil based..the various payasas, kajjaya, sajjappa, etc, I think are the original ones (if you read old Kannada books you will find that these are the sweets usually referred to..my guess is that chiroti, pheni ,maybe even boondi laadu, etc must be later introductions/inventions..