The situations of China and India, as regards the English language, are completely different. The English language has been present in India since the 16th century, India was part of the British Empire for 250 years, during which time its government and administration was carried on in English. Today, English is the second official language, all government documents are written in English and Hindi, the professions such as law and medicine are largely carried out in English and there are over 12 million Indians who speak English as their first language (compared with 15 million Australians and 4 million New Zealanders). In addition there are approximately 90 million people who speak English fluently as a second language, plus unknown millions who use some English daily. There are also approximately 17 million English speakers in Pakistan which, as I'm sure you know, was part of India until 1947. Indian English is a recognised dialect of English.
Hinglish: a mixture of Hindi and english, while speaking in hindi usage of English words.
Indian English: proper english dilect with sentence structure/grammar and pronunciation influenced by the first language (hindi) due to direct translations, which we refer as Indianisms, ex usage of progressive verbs (ing form), prepone, etc
I dont need to resource to state this, as I am an Indian and have first hand knowledge on what is spoken and what is not...
But you must understand that academics who submit to scholarly journals do not "trash" each other. They politely point out problems in methodology, lack of empirical evidence for theories, discrepancies etc.
So, I will post a few articles and journals, but don't expect it to read like the Mirror or the National Enquirer.
SWAIN. M and S LAPKIN (1995) “Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A Step Towards Second Language Learning” Applied Linguistics, Vol 16, No 3.
“ In a recent article on second language speech production research, Crookes
(1991 117) states that ' the role of output (i e production or use) in the
development of SL [second language] proficiency has largely been ignored or
denied (e g Krashen 1989)' The purposes of this paper are to argue that there
are roles for output in second language learning, and to present some relevant
data regarding one of those roles ”
From Ellis, Rod (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 2nd ed. Oxford, OUP.
There have been a number of critiques of the Input Hypothesis (Gregg, 1984, Faerch and Kaspar 1986; Sharwood Smith 1986; McLaughlin 1987; White 1987; Gass 1988; Ellis, 1990, 1991). Perhaps the major problem is that Krashen paid little attention to what comprehensibility entails” (Ellis: 251).
White, L (1987) "Against Comprehensible Input: the input hypothesis and the development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics 8:95-110.
Gass, M (1988) "Integrating research areas: a framework for second language studies" Applied Linguistics 9: 198-217
Gregg, K. (1984) "Krahen's Monitor and Occam's Razor" Applied Linguistics 5 79-100.
Swain (1985, 1995) advanced the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis as a complement to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. She argues that immersion programs in Canada had demonstrated that comprehensible input alone was insufficient to ensure that learners achieved high levels of grammatical and sociolinguistic competence. (Ellis 260)
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative Competence: some roles of comprehensible input and output in its development” in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition, Rowland Mass: Newbury House.
I tried to stick to journals, but some of the better quotes are from textbooks. Fortunately, a good enough discussion of the deficiencies of Krashen's Comprehensible Input Hypothesis has taken place in the Applied Linguistics, so you could do some further browsing there.
And I will nominate that as the "one journal" you asked for.
Oh, now that I check, you only asked for one journal article! Consider the rest a bonus.