When you say 'fluently' what does that mean to you or indeed to the society that you live in. Native-speaker-like-fluency is accorded status in the Arab world. So whether you choose to emulate the American, UK or other models is really up to you.
The question arises how best to acquire (not learn) fluency. We are concerned with language acquisition as opposed to language learning. In fact George Yule states:
"The term acquisition is used to refer to the gradual development of ability in a language by using it naturally in communicative situations with others who know the language. The term learning, however, applies to a more conscious process of accumulating knowledge of the features, such as vocabulary and grammar, of a language, typically in an institutional setting. (Mathematics, for example, is learned, not acquired.)
Activities associated with learning have traditionally been used in language teaching in schools and have a tendency, when successful, to result in more knowledge ‘about’ the language (as demonstrated in tests) than fluency in actually using the language (as demonstrated in social interaction). Activities associated with acquisition are those experienced by the young child and, by analogy, those who ‘pick up’ a second language from long periods spent in interaction, constantly using the language, with native speakers of the language. Those individuals whose L2 exposure is primarily a learning type of experience tend not to develop the same kind of general proficiency ('fluency'-added by me) as those who have had more of an acquisition type of experience."*
So in short you need to be more involved in communicative activities with native speakers or indeed if you choose to Indian English language speakers.
I think it is unfair to suggest that native speakers speak ungrammatically as this is merely assuming a prescriptive approach to grammar. It is a fallacy that spoken English is not grammatical. If I were to say "went we par