In a paper at Regional Conference of the Association of Commonwealth Literature and Language Studies Held at India International Centre ,New Delhi on February23-6,1975,R.Parthasarathy , while exposing the position of Indian writers in English reffered to the comments of American poets Allen Ginsberg ,Gary Snycler and Peter Onlovsky: "If we were gangster poets we would shoot you"(1), his threat was direct against the Indian writers’ failure to take risk with the English language.
To explain the reason behind this R.Parthasarathy says that there at least two problems which prevent Indian writers to take the risk.First is related to the kind of experience he would like to express in English .
Indian who use the Emglish language gets in some extent alienated . This development is superficial and this is why many blame ‘Indian Writers in English’(IWE) as writers who present India in a foreign view-point .There work doesn’t contain a deep analysis of the Indian realities and Indian characters .
Many regional writers (many of who are even Jnapitha Awardees) say writing in English in India is a severe handicap as it tends to make their writing export oriented .Hindi writer Rajendra Yadav puts it as : "The IWE take a tourist look at India , like Pankaj Mishra’s The Romantics , where he is simply a tourist who does not know the inner psyche of people or a more clever device Vikram Seth uses in A S uitable Boy ,the pretext of looking for a bride-groom ,which takes him to different locales and professions . It is a creatively written travelers’ guide .They travel into our culture , describe a bit of our geography ; their total approach is a westerner’s :a third rate ‘serpant-rope trick’"
Many believe that IWE is circumscribed by what only westerner can appreciate :either exotica or erotica .Both these elements are visible in Ruth Prawar Jhabavala’s Heat and Dust .There is description of shrines , Sadhus ,Nawabs ,Princes and their castles along with sex and gay-parties and Hijraas .Jhabvala’s picture of princely India is extremely un realistic ,quixotic and pseudo-romantic .Similar is the case of Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things . B.Jaya Mohan in a recent interview to Out Look magazine (February 25 , 2002) said :"Writers like Roy are superficial and exotic .When Roy uses English to express a Malayalam idiom , it might be exotic for westerner , but for Indians it is not very exciting ."
Still there are writers in English for whom a little praise is made ,but that even by another English writer.In an obituary to R.K.Narayan in Time magazine ,V.S.Naipul writes :"His people can eat off leaves on a floor in a slum tenement ,hang their upper clothes on a coat stand ,do all that in correct English ,and there is no strangeness ,no false comedy ,no distance" But still regional writers believe ; " …but any Tamil writer would have put more life into his novels than R.K. did".
The battle of the first kind of problem guides us into the second and this is ‘ the quality of idiom the writer uses’ .R .Parthasarathy says that " there is obviously a time lag between the living , creative idiom and the English used in India .And this time lag is not likely to diminish".
It is because the historical situation is to blame .Besides there is no special English idiom ,either .English in India rarely approaches the liveliness and idiosyncrasy of usage one finds in African or West Indian writing , perhaps because of the long tradition of literature in Indian languages .
This is explained by Kannada d Oyen " writers in Indian language have a rich back-ground -- centuries old literary traditions,flok tales and life all round them -- the IWE only have frontyard".That’s why Rushdie draws fom the ethos and Hindi of Mumbai,while writers like Narayan draws from Tamil and Raja Rao from Kannada .But still the idiom they use lacks in liveliness, because "it’s impossible to transfer into English the cultural traditions and the associations of language".This is why it is not surprising that writers in English tend to over emphasize their Indianness . This also explains why Michael Madhusudan Dutt after publishing thesis first book The Captive Lady(1849) in English turned to Bengali to become the first modern Indian poet .
While a regional writer can directly concentrate mode of writing the IWE has to face a complex problem---‘he has to go through the tedious explanations of the idioms he uses in his book ,leaving little space for creative writing’.
Perhaps Narayan was the only writer who never cared for such explanations .Naipul writes (Time,June 4 ,2001) :
"There is or used to be a kind of Indian writer who used many italics and for the excitement ,had a glossary of perfectly simple local words at the back of his book .Narayan never did that .He explains little or nothing;he talks everything about his people and his little town for granted".
But this is not possible for every IWE writer who wants to perform an experiment in creative English writing .R.Parthasarathy explains in the context of his own position as an English poet with Tamil as his mother tongue . "English is a part of my intellectual, rational make-up Tamil my emotional ,psychic make-up"Hence it is he believes that every IWE feels that he has an unnecessary burden to do the explanation of the idioms he uses ,and My Tongue in English Chain is a theoretical statement of this problem.
Russian scholar E.J.Kalinikova in Problems of Modern Indian Literature (1975) also refers to this problem in G.Byol’s words :
"National colouring is like naivete’ ,if you realize you have it ,then you have already lost it […] Conception of the Indian through Indian eyes is natural,and this only determine the scope of literary subject", where as an English writer ofIndia tries to give .The elements in a foreign language for which the whole experience of that element is strange and in the end what is produced is in Kamala Das’s words:
"It is halfEnglish,half Indian
Funny perhaps, but it is honest" [An Introduction]
To provide a compromise M.R.Anand writes in his essay Pigeon—Indian:Some Notes on Indian English Writing : "The real tests are different The first test is in the sincerity of the writer in any language .The second test may be in the degree of sensitiveness or individual talent".
And in what this talent lie ?Anita Desai has the answer :
"I think I have learnt how to live with English language,how to deal with the problems it creats –mainly by ignoring them"
This view is supported by Henery James –"One’s own language is one’s mother ,but the language one adopts as a career, as a study ,is one’s wife[…] she will expect you to commit infidelities .On those terms she will keep your house well"
Perhaps that’s why IWE like Raja Rao have justified their own stand as :
"We can write only as Indians[…] Time will alone justify it"
[Introduction to Kantapura]
Every writer (especially poet) ,as many believe ,sooner or later suffers from ‘Aphasia’ or ‘loss of poetic speech’ .His poetry ought to ,from the beginning aspire to the condition of silence.This is similar to Rene’ Wellek’s notion on Endgame of Samuel Beckett :
"Samuel Beckett in Endgame has been looking for the voice of his silence"
But Wellek’s view is applicable to the living force that still move the Indian English writers’ pen on paper .
"The artist,s dissatisfaction with language can only be expressed by language .Pause may be a device to express the un expressible ,but the pause can not be prolonged indefinitely".
So, in spite of the problems related to language and diction in use , the writers must keep on trying their best in carving out on them ,their creativeness on experimental basis ,because that may one day lead us to where we are now caving to reach.