Generally our historian of language and literature has neglected those poets who were unpopular or less credible in power corridors or their mock language was never reconstructed to determine the metaphoric resistance on their part. Likewise our critics neglected less talked sources in contemporary history which adopted a tone different to the 'official' tone. Pointing out of such evidences give us an insight and view of indigenous perception of growth of language and literature. In this article these omissions  have been unfolded.