And I don't understand what you mean by a "Britisher minting fame on an Indian theme."
1. Danny Boyle is already a legend in his field with the iconic Trainspotting. SM brought him fame all right by introducing him to a wider circle of people,
2. The theme is not Indian. The theme is universal: Impoverished, hard -done- by underdogs finding deserved fame and fortune. The underdog coming out tops to the roars of approval from the crowd. SM is the same theme set in India, that's all. It could have happened in the slums of England or the ghettos of America or the shanties of South Africa. It so happened that the writer was Indian. The person who adapted the story to screen is Simon Beaufoy, the writer of The Full Monty, another story about the underdogs and the impoverished actually overcoming their pathetic lives with determination and diligence and had the audience rooting for them.
3. The problem is most of our Indian directors are so keen on making candy floss films with unbelievable plots. Like ARR put it so aptly, if I am a director, and I thought that a film did not do justice or portray things the way I don't like, I would do a film to contradict it. And why is it that some other people from a foreign country could recognise the potential in Swarup's book but not their countrymen? Also do these critics feel that the Mumbai portrayed in Kuch Kuch Hota Hai or the lifestyle portrayed in Kabhie Gush Kabhie Gham are much preferable or believable?