Can local food be authentic if the chef is foriegn?

I think the two most important things of a place that play an enormous role in defining them are 1) the people, 2) the food.

But, if the local food is cooked by a foreigner, is it still authentic?

In Madrid, 95% of Indian restaurants are run by Bangladeshis. Bangladeshi food is not the same as Indian, the style is not completely different but it is distinct. To me, eating at any of those restaurants is not eating authentic Indian food because the chefs are Bangladeshi. Whenever I’ve eaten at these places, the food is good, but not what I’d call typically Indian.

A recent article in the NY Times made me question my belief that the food is only authentically good if the chef is from the country of origin of the food. In the article, a prestigious restaurant reviewer in Rome sought out the best carbonara in the city. First place was given to a restaurant whose head chef was Tunisian, and second place was given to one whose head chef was Indian.

I recently ate at a Peruvian restaurant here in Madrid, the first thing I asked the waitress was if she was Peruvian, then I asked if the cook was too. The answer to both was yes and I believe I ate an authentic Peruvian meal. I wouldn’t have felt that if the chef was Pakistani; even if the food was delicious, I would have thought the cook added his twist to it.

I suppose it all has to do with the training the chef has, as opposed to where he/she is from. Although the article says that it makes no difference where the chef is from, I can’t help thinking, no matter what the training, the chef’s “cooking-hand” is influenced by the food he ate growing up, i.e. it can’t be 100% authentic.

What do you think? How important is it for the chef to be from the country of origin of the food you are eating? Does it matter to you at all? Or am I just a crackpot who thinks about these things?