With us, give wings to your words!

In this blogpost, we analyse the accessibility of Indian Traditional Publishing with two viral articles on the same.

A familiar question has resurfaced in Indian literary conversations: Is Indian traditional publishing difficult to access if you are not already inside the system?

The discussion gained momentum after a recent post by Girish Shukla, who pointed out a noticeable pattern many Indian-origin authors who achieve global recognition are often based outside India. His observation sparked a wider conversation about access, visibility, and whether the Indian traditional publishing ecosystem unintentionally favours certain kinds of authors.

Shortly after, Somak Ghoshal offered a counterpoint, arguing that Indian traditional publishing today is far more open and dynamic than it once was, with multiple entry points for new and emerging writers. (Read Somak Ghoshal’s post)

However, his argument did not stop at accessibility, it went further, raising concerns about the internal workings of large publishing houses, editorial rigour, and market-driven decisions.

Together, these perspectives open up a more layered question:

Is the issue really about access or about what the system rewards once access is gained?

The Concern: Who Gets Seen, and Who Gets Published?

At the heart of Girish Shukla’s argument is a perception that visibility in Indian publishing is uneven.

Writers based outside India often:

• Have access to international agents
• Are positioned within global publishing networks
• Benefit from visibility across markets

This can create the impression that recognition flows more easily from outside than within. Whether or not this is universally true, the perception itself matters, because it shapes how new writers view the possibility of entering Indian traditional publishing.

Another perspective comes from Tanuj Solanki, who brings the focus back to the writer’s relationship with the system rather than the system alone. His argument suggests that while structural limitations and market pressures in Indian publishing are real, they do not fully determine literary outcomes.

What often gets overlooked in these debates, he points out, is the role of the manuscript itself. Its ambition, its craft, and the author’s willingness to engage deeply with revision and editorial feedback plays a crucial role. In a landscape shaped by both commerce and culture, Solanki’s view introduces a more grounded reminder that access and industry dynamics matter, but so does the rigour of the work being submitted.

For authors, this shifts part of the conversation inward as a recognition that navigating Indian traditional publishing also requires sustained commitment to the writing itself.

The Counterpoint: A Changing Landscape

While in another piece, Somak Ghoshal acknowledges that Indian traditional publishing today is not the closed system it once was.

There are more:

• Independent presses
• Open submission windows
• Digital platforms
• Literary spaces

From a purely structural standpoint, access has improved. But his critique shifts the conversation from entry to experience.

Read this follow up piece by Amitabha Bagchi as a response to the original article by Girish Shukla

The Question of Editorial Rigour

One of the sharper observations raised is about the role of large publishing houses, what he describes as behemoths with significant influence over the market. According to this view, their lists often reflect a mix of:

• Celebrity-led titles
• Influencer-driven content
• Market-friendly non-fiction
• Commercially safe narratives

Within this system, even literary lists may struggle with editorial depth, not necessarily due to lack of intent, but because of structural constraints.

Editors today are often expected to:

• Acquire multiple titles
• Manage tight publishing schedules
• Work within limited resources

This raises a difficult but necessary question:

Can editorial excellence be sustained at scale?

A Case That Illustrates the Gap

A particularly telling example referenced by Somak Ghoshal is that of Shehan Karunatilaka’s novel.

An earlier version of the book was published in India as Chats with the Dead. It later appeared, in a more rigorously edited form, as The Seven Moons of Maali Almeida through a smaller international press, going on to win the Booker Prize.

The implication here is not about discrediting one edition over another, but about highlighting how editorial investment and positioning can significantly shape a book’s trajectory.It also brings into focus the role smaller, more focused presses can sometimes play in nurturing a manuscript.

Market Economics vs Literary Intent

Another layer to this conversation is the growing influence of market considerations. Indian Traditional Publishing, like any industry, operates within commercial realities.

This leads to:

• Preference for established names
• Safer thematic choices
• Repeatable formats
• Books with built-in audiences

In such an environment, newer voices or those working outside dominant trends may find it harder to stand out. This is not necessarily a question of exclusion, but of prioritisation.

The Nepo-List and Network Advantage

One of the more controversial points raised is the idea of informal networks influencing Indian Traditional Publishing decisions what is sometimes described as a nepo-list.

This includes:

• Industry insiders
• Event curators
• Public figures
• Individuals within existing literary circles

While not formally acknowledged, the existence of networks is not unique to Indian Traditional publishing. Most creative industries operate through a mix of open access and relationship-driven opportunities.

For new authors, this can reinforce the perception that entry is uneven, even if it is not formally restricted.

So, Is Publishing Inaccessible?

Perhaps the more accurate answer is this:

Indian traditional publishing is accessible, but not always equitable in experience.

• You can submit a manuscript
• You can get published
• You can find readers

But:

• Not all books receive the same editorial attention
• Not all authors have the same starting point
• Not all opportunities are equally visible

This distinction matters.Because it shifts the conversation from whether doors exist to how those doors function once opened.

Where the Feeling of Inaccessibility Comes From

1. Lack of Transparency

For many authors, the process of submission and selection remains unclear.

• Response timelines are long
• Feedback is rare
• Acceptance criteria are not always visible

This can make publishing feel like a closed system, even when it isn’t intentionally so.

2. Network Effects

Like most creative industries, Indian traditional publishing runs partly on relationships.

Editors, agents, and authors often operate within overlapping circles like the literary festivals, workshops, academic spaces, and media networks. For someone outside these circles, breaking in can take longer. This does not mean access is denied, but it may not be evenly distributed.

3. Market Positioning

Traditional publishers are building lists by selecting manuscripts.

This means they consider:

• Market demand
• Reader segments
• Sales potential
• Brand alignment

A strong manuscript may still be rejected if it does not fit current publishing priorities. For authors, this can feel like rejection without clear reasoning.

Today, self-publishing and hybrid models have given authors more control over how their work reaches readers. While traditional publishing still holds value, it is no longer the only route.

Furthermore, there is greater visibility for:

• Regional writing
• Translations
• New genres and formats

This suggests that the ecosystem, while imperfect, is expanding.

What This Means for Authors

For authors navigating Indian traditional publishing, this debate offers a few practical takeaways.

1. Access Is Only the First Step

Getting published is important, but what happens after matters just as much. Editing, positioning, and long-term support shape a book’s life.

2. Not All Publishing Experiences Are Identical

Two authors published by different houses or even within the same house may have very different experiences. Understanding this helps set realistic expectations.

3. Alternative Paths Are Worth Considering

Independent publishers, smaller presses, and hybrid models can sometimes offer:

• More focused editorial attention
• Stronger collaboration
• Clearer positioning

Traditional publishing remains valuable, but it is not the only route.

4. Awareness Is an Advantage

Understanding how the system works along with its strengths and its limitations allows authors to make more informed decisions. Taken together, the perspectives of Girish Shukla and Somak Ghoshal do not contradict each other as much as they expand the conversation.

One points to patterns of visibility. The other examines structural realities within publishing. Both, in different ways, highlight that the question is not simply about access. It is about how publishing operates and what it prioritises.mportant steps in moving forward.

---

At Keemiya Creatives, we work with authors navigating ow to approach traditional publishing with clarity, strategy, and realistic expectations.

From manuscript readiness to positioning and submission strategy, we help authors understand not just where to pitch, but how to do it effectively within the Indian publishing ecosystem.

If you are trying to find your way into traditional publishing and want a clearer roadmap, you can reach out to us.