Indian English literature rose as an interesting by-product of an eventful encounter in the late eighteenth century between a powerful Britain and a stagnant India. The first period of Indian English literature may be said to end in the 1850s before the Indian Revolt of 1857. During this period British rule in India was generally accepted by most Indians as a great boon divinely delivered.

The holocaust of the Revolt ushered in different ideas. After consulting a few books, the writer, however, doesn’t claim a scholar or an expert to dwell on the summary of Indian English literature.

But according to FW Bain, India as a withered trunk suddenly shot out with foreign foliage. One form this foliage took was that of original writing in English by Indians, thus partially fulfilling Samuel Daniel’s prophesy in the sixteenth century concerning the English language.

The first problem that confronts every historian of Indian English literature, it is said, is to define its nature and scope clearly.

The question has been made rather complicated owing to two factors: first, this body of writing has, from time to time, been designated variously as Indo-Anglian literature, Indian writing in English and Indo-English literature; secondly, the failure to make clear-cut distinctions has also often led to confusion between categories such as Anglo-Indian literature, literature in the Indian languages translated into English and oriental composition in English by Indians.

There is an interpretation of the term “Indo-Anglian literature” as comprising the work of Indian writers in English and Indo-English literature as consisting of translations by Indians from Indian literature into English. John B Alphonso Karkala in his Indo-English literature in the nineteenth century, 1970 uses the term Indo-English literature to mean literature produced by Indians in English.

Broadly speaking, Indian English literature may be defined as literature written originally in English by authors, Indian by birth, ancestry or nationality. It is clear that neither Anglo-Indian literature nor literal translations by others can legitimately form part of this literature.

The former comprises the writings of British or western authors concerning India. Rudyard Kipling, F.W. Bain, Paul Scott, Sir Edwin Arnold, F.A. Steel and M.M. Kaye are well known to have written about India, but it is argued that their work obviously belongs to British literature.

Similarly, translations from the Indian languages into English cannot also form part of Indian English literature, except when they are creative translations by the authors themselves.

The Eurasians who form a small class of Indian society called Anglo-Indian claim English as their mother tongue, but with notable exceptions like Henry Derozio, Aubrey Menen and Ruskin Bond, it is now discovered that few of them had tried to express themselves creatively in English.

But even in their case, the Indian strain in them is bound to condition the nature of both their artistic sensibility and their way of expression. Since literature is not a science, there will be a no man’s land in which all attempts at strict definition are in danger of getting lost in a haze.

Thus, there are exceptional cases like Anand K Coomaraswamy and Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. The former, born of a Sri Lankan Tamil father and an English mother, was neither an Indian citizen nor did he live in India, and yet the entire orientation of his thought is so unmistakably Indian that it is impossible not to consider him an Indian English writer.

Jhabvala is virtually an international phenomenon who was born of Polish parents in Germany. She received her education in English, married an Indian, lived in India for more than twenty years, and had written in English. On becoming daughter-in-law of India, she showed such close familiarity and deep understanding of Indian social life that she has rightly found a place in the history of Indian English literature.

On the other hand, what has been known is that V.S. Naipaul’s Indian ancestry is indisputable, but he is so much of an outsider when he writes about India and Indians and so much of an insider when he deals with Caribbean life and character, that there can be no two options on his rightful inclusion in the history of West Indian Writing.

Now, it is established that Indian English literature, thus defined is not part of English literature, any more than American literature can be said to be a branch of British literature. It is legitimately a part of Indian literature, since its differentia is the expression in it of an Indian ethos.

Its use of English as a medium may also give it a place in Commonwealth literature, but that is largely a political entity. In any case, this does not in the smallest measure affect the claim of Indian English literature to be primarily a part of Indian literature. Another problem is that of choosing from among the various titles given to it from time to time-viz, Indo-Anglian literature, Indian Writing in English, Indo-English literature and Indian English literature.

While many are allergic to the expression “Indo-Anglian”, some would prefer “Indo-English.” Indo-Anglian is reasonably handy and descriptive. But a major flaw in the term of Indo-Anglian as pointed out by Alphonso Karkala is that it would suggest relation between two countries (India and England) rather than a country and a language. Indo-Anglian is thus hardly an accurate term to designate this literature. At last, being puzzled, an enterprising London printer changed it to Indo-Anglican.

As regards one’s fondness of English, one Kashiprasad Ghose (1809-73), ambitiously composed original verse in English by studying prosody and criticism on the advice of his British teacher. He failed to produce the one to be reckoned with, owing to sheer lack of English root.

The course of Indian English literature is an absorbing record of the steady march of the Indian writers in English from pitifulness to authentic literary expression. Far from remaining merely imitators of the British, Indian English writers struggled valiantly against prejudice, neglect and ridicule. And at their best, they had proved themselves to be proud heirs to the two equally rich worlds of the East and the West. Likewise, after some decades, the present writing in English will greatly contribute to the said literature.

Gracefully, a writer may be eulogized for his writing today, but later his writing may not be accepted for reason of flaws as we all depend on a foreign language. Occasionally, rather than all of the time some writers in India too can write even like the English themselves. But we can only write like any Indian.

How expressively and uniquely noted Khush-want Singh and Rajinder Puri write are sufficient to form part of Indian English literature, and they find it as a means to express their ideas on any given topics easier in English than in their respective native languages. One such can be called distinctive dialectical English, current in South-East Asia.

One’s sure right choice of words and perfect control of sentence structure, which are essential in writing, is an uphill task for an average writer, and all of us of such category.

Our method of expression, therefore, is a dialect to prove some day to be as distinctive and colourful as the Irish and the American or English of other South East Asian countries.