TOWARDS INDIAN ENGLISH
Dr. K. VENKATA REDDY
The most challenging task of the Indian
creative writer in English is the problem of using the English language in a
way that will be distinctively Indian and still remain English. Long back Raja
Rao declared: “We cannot write like the English: we should not. We cannot write
only as Indians. We have grown to look at the large world as part of us. Our
method of expression, therefore, has to be a dialect which will some day prove
to be as distinctive and colourful as the Irish or
the American.” This hope, widespread among Indian writers, critics and readers,
has been realized, to a great extent, thanks to the sincere efforts of a few
creative writers.
For a long time, “Indian English” used to be
a term of disapprobation,
implying an insecure grip on English idiom or an infelicitous use of English
vocabulary. Though that meaning still persists in many quarters, among the
writers at least there seems to be an awareness that
English is a pliant language, which each writer has to fashion anew to serve
his particular purpose. What is more, for an Indian writer this fashioning will
have to be different from what a British or American
writer does inasmuch as the definition of good English varies not only from
century to century but also from place to place. American, Irish and Australian
English derive much of their vitality and distinctive colour from being based
on a vigorous vernacular which expresses a response to experience that is
understood by, if not common to, all levels of their national society. But, in
Hence the question whether
the Indian writer is able to achieve the interfusion of “the world of words”
and “the world of sensations.” This depends, to a great extent, on “the intimacy or adaptation” and
the level reached in the process of naturalization of the language which the
writer puts to a creative use. This problem is squarely met by an American or Australian writer for whom
English is the language of natural discourse. He is, therefore, able to tap
its resources most adequately to create the different nuances of feeling and
emotion appropriate to the ethos he breathes in. But the Indian writer has
obviously no such choice. He is woefully caught in a peculiar situation where
he has to deal with the non-English speaking areas, and has to overcome the
difficulty of conveying through English the vast range of feeling, modes of
observation and instinctive responses.
Small wonder, therefore, if English in
All this, however, does not mean that the
Indian writer is always incapable of expressing himself in English, or
communicating the ranges of ideas and sentiments. There are at least a few
creative writers who have circumvented the linguistic hurdles with a
commendable measure of success. With their continuous experimentation they
have lent to the English language a peculiarly Indian tone and colour by way of
infusing “the tempo of Indian life” into their English expression.
While remaining faithful to the familiar
contours of the vernacular sensibility, creative writers like Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan, Bhabani Bhattacharya and
Raja Rao have manipulated the linguistic resources of English in their own
characteristic way. They have been seeking to discover language correlatives to
convey the complexity and pressure of the Indian scene. The quality that makes
their writing unique is their ability to approximate their speech to the idiom
that is peculiar to their region.
More than any of his contemporaries, Mulk Raj Anand seems to have felt the urgency of giving the alien
language an “Indian domicile.” His experiments with style are consistent with
his world-view. Rendering proletarian speech correctly in English is his aim,
and his unconventional diction and radical experiments with vocabulary are all
geared to this end. He distinguishes between “Baboo
English” and genuine Indian English used for artistic purposes. He endeavours to impart to the English speech the raciness and colour the tonal resonances and idiomatic intimacies of his vernacular. He does not mind even distorting the
English syntax and idiom in order to lend self-consistent authenticity and
exactitude and to reproduce the tonal richness of his vernacular speech. No
doubt, his bold attempts to reproduce the nuances and locutions of usage
prevailing in his mother-tongue prove, at times, disastrous. They distort the
sensibility as much as they refract the idiom. Expressions like “Is this any
talk” is a literal translation of “Yeh koi bath hai” in Hindi.
A common complaint against Anand’s language is the excessive use of swear-words and
abuse like “rape mother”, “illegally begotten”, “eaters of monstress”
that form the natural mode of conversation of the peasants. But the point is
that the awkward oath-ridden language of his characters soon establishes
itself as an acceptable convention in the reader’s mind, for we wish to hear of
their plight and of their society. Yet we do not expect to achieve any real
intimacy with them, for their private beliefs, passions and anxieties are so
remote. The stylized English that Anand imposes on his low characters works
because it acknowledges the distance that necessarily exists between the
subject and the reader.
Like Anand, R. K. Narayan
succeeds remarkably, with his limited resources, in the presentation of the
Indian life and scene. But, unlike Anand, he does not pressurise
the English language into yielding stylistic nuances alien to it, but lets it
dissolve itself into the Indian scene and thereby gain a tonal quality all its
own. Only occasionally does he attempt to enlarge the sentence structure with
an addition of a phrase or a clause. He achieves effect by parenthesis rather
than by extension, by ellipsis rather than by elaboration. Narayan’s
English, on the whole, is evocative and fairly simple, well adapted to reflect
the generally uncomplicated mentality of his characters. It is a clear,
efficient prose with a slightly stilted idiom. In spite of his general lack of
flexibility, Narayan has still effectively conveyed
the whole emotional complex through a verbal medium which is at once authentic
and self-consistent.
Raja Rao and Bhabani
Bhattacharya are two other writers who
have been able to create a definite and distinguishably, “Indian English”
rooted in the vernacular tradition. Bhattacharya deliberately tries to recreate
the Bengali rhythm in the English language by doing away with the syntactic
distinction between a question and statement. Bengali sentences, unlike
English, often leave out the verb “to be.” Bhattacharya seems to transfer this
feature to his English occasionally, as in “Who more proud than I on this day”
instead of “Who is more proud”, etc. Another device with him is to use a number
of short sentences together in a way that sounds natural when an Indian speaks
in English. For example, “Why speak? What use! Trees and rocks have a heart.
Not man. Why speak?” Thus, through experiment with sentence structure,
Bhattacharya attempts to indicate a different ethos.
Raja Rao exhibits a rare originality and an
uncanny ambidexterity in attempting to communicate the materials of Indian life
and scene through a language which superbly conveys its theme and the amplitude
or vision. This he achieves without lapsing into “Baboo
English” or grossly transgressing the syntactical or grammatical patterns of
the normal English. His linguistic experiments are as original as those of the
West African writers like Chinua Achebe,
Amos Tutuola and Gabriel Okara
who introduced the rhythms of their native speech into English. He makes an
earnest effort to transmute into English a local idiom with its distinct echo
of regional speech and reflection of local colour: “If you are the sons of your
father, do what this learned boy says.”
As a result, Raja Rao has been able to forge
a new language and style for the expression of the Indian psyche. And in his
vigorous search for a new diction and sensibility, he has created an “avant garde” fictional style
suited to the expression of the native thematic material! “And hearts began to
beat, and yet we saw no Moorthy, and yet no Moorthy, and yet not a hair of his head was seen.” What
distinguishes Raja Rao from others is his wonderful capacity to allow the
disparate elements dissolve into the Indian scene and personality. He imbues
his English with Indian rhythms and intonations, his similes and metaphors
smelling the soil. His whole narrative is so geared to native mores that his
English develops an unmistakably Indian ethos.
Thus, the Indian creative writer in English,
who naturally encounters many problems both in the choice of his artistic
medium and in the projection of Indian experience in a language which has no
natural spoken environment in his society, has succeeded to a great extent in
giving English a peculiarly Indian tone, colour and resonance thereby forging
the medium, “Indian English,” that will best answer his needs without
distorting the truth or falsifying the sensibility. He has been able to prove
that English is flexible enough to accommodate any experience.