Montisory Paddhati Vishe Vandha Ane Mara Vicharo

Here's a comprehensive summary of Sukhlal Sanghavi's article "Some Objections Regarding the Montessori Method and My Thoughts on Them," based on the provided text:

The author, Sukhlal Sanghavi, begins by acknowledging the emergence of new educational methods, singling out the Montessori method as one that is gaining traction in India, with Bhavnagar's Balmandir drawing particular attention. His motivation to examine the Montessori method stemmed from a desire to understand it better, especially after a friend, who had visited the Bhavnagar school, raised three main objections. Sanghavi spent three days observing the school's program and discussing its methods to form his own informed opinion.

He then outlines the three primary objections raised against the Montessori method:

1. High Cost: The method is perceived as being too expensive.
2. Lack of Discipline/Freedom: Children are believed to become undisciplined and unrestrained.
3. Absence of Competition: The lack of competition is seen as a hindrance to intellectual growth.

Sanghavi addresses the objections concerning discipline and competition first.

On Lack of Discipline/Freedom: Sanghavi found the accusation of a lack of discipline to be unfounded. He observed children aged three to six demonstrating remarkable concentration, politeness, and engagement in a conducive environment. He argues that the method does not promote unchecked freedom but rather facilitates natural development. He concedes that the Montessori method doesn't rely on the stern gaze or corrective words of a teacher as a form of discipline in the traditional sense. However, he posits that this very absence of rigid, external control is the "soul" and a virtue of the method, not a flaw. He contrasts this with children who are often restless and unable to focus due to parental pressure, temptations, and artificial fears. In the Montessori environment, children, free from such pressures, willingly and joyfully engage with chosen activities for extended periods, developing their sensory and motor skills without external coercion. If this natural focus and self-directed engagement are to be labeled as "freedom," then true freedom, fearlessness, and spontaneity have no place in the world, except in dictionaries.

On the Absence of Competition: Sanghavi challenges the notion that the absence of competition hinders knowledge acquisition. He argues that while competition can sometimes be beneficial, it often leads to discouragement and loss of enthusiasm in those who fall behind. This discouragement can spill over into their preferred subjects, hindering their overall potential. He believes that enthusiasm is the lifeblood of learning. Instead of forcing competition, the Montessori method creates an environment conducive to a child's natural inclinations. When children are given the opportunity to develop their abilities according to their individual aptitudes and interests in a supportive environment, their enthusiasm flows naturally, much like water from a well. This allows each child to cultivate their unique strengths, fostering individuality. By not forcing children to engage with subjects they lack interest or aptitude in, their energy is preserved, and their self-confidence remains high. In contrast, forced competition can drain children in subjects they are not suited for, leading to weakness that can affect their performance even in areas of interest.

Sanghavi further argues that while competition might yield some results for a few individuals, it carries detrimental side effects. The allure of material gain and reputation, often associated with competitive environments, can breed envy and jealousy, which can plague an individual's soul throughout their life. Therefore, he considers the Montessori method's abandonment of forced competition a desirable characteristic.

On High Cost: Turning to the issue of cost, Sanghavi poses a critical question: Is the Montessori method inferior to other methods, or is it superior? He asserts that if the Montessori method could be proven inferior through any means other than its cost, it would indeed deserve to perish. However, he states that the inferiority of the Montessori method has not been proven. On the contrary, there is a growing consensus about its superiority, with its sincere and honest practitioners considering it more scientific and natural than other methods. Since no one with more experience has yet demonstrated its inferiority, the objection of high cost must be considered within the context of its potential superiority. He believes the scientific nature and naturalness of the Montessori method are its strengths and proof of its advantage over other methods.

Sanghavi acknowledges that there might be an initial high cost in implementing the Montessori method, but he argues that this should be accepted for the sake of preparing a capable populace. He contrasts this with the prevailing government education system, whose limited and unsatisfactory results, as well as its costs, are well-known. He questions how many children emerge from the current system with strong minds and bodies, noting how parents are burdened with debt to provide this education, yet few achieve true security for themselves or their dependents. Despite its perceived costliness, people are drawn to this ineffective system by the slim chance of success.

In stark contrast, the Montessori method, with its emphasis on naturalness, aims for the holistic development of a child's soul, mind, and speech. The primary incentive in this method is not government prestige but all-round development. If thoughtful and capable individuals continue to experiment with this method for a few years, its results will become evident to the public, and the environment will become more supportive of its practices.

Sanghavi questions how the issue of high cost would persist if the Montessori method's environment were to capture the public's imagination. He observes that the general public, despite its poverty and ordinary circumstances, often shows little interest in the natural development of their children's minds and speech, even when free opportunities exist. Instead, they prioritize expenses for events like Upanayana and marriages, often incurring debt. However, when the public's attention is drawn to an educational system with the most beautiful outcomes, they will inevitably redirect their spending. He points out that the public spends vast sums on religious rituals and elaborately supports religious leaders. Similarly, individuals exhaust themselves with wasteful customs. Historically, when the public's attention is captivated by the promise of excellent educational outcomes, the influence of outdated traditions, the ostentatious demands of religious leaders, and destructive customs will inevitably wane. If the experiences of Montessori practitioners offer them encouragement and deep hope, the question of cost should not be an impediment. While the cost might be a temporary concern, considering it a permanent obstacle to the method's propagation would be a mistake. If the method fails to produce desired results, its practitioners have the capacity to abandon it. However, if it yields the best results, as Sanghavi believes it will, the cost will never be a barrier.

Sanghavi reiterates that his discussion has been framed by accepting the premise that the Montessori method is indeed costly, with a specific purpose: For a nation suffering from dependence, poverty, superstition, and ignorance, and which often squanders resources on perpetuating these very issues, how can it reasonably object to a method that promises to alleviate these problems? He questions whether the objection of high cost is valid for parents who are obsessed with artificially decorating their children's bodies to appear beautiful, rather than focusing on their true inner beauty. He questions whether religious leaders, who exploit people's faith for personal gain, should be raising the issue of cost against a system of true education, rather than contributing to it by reducing their own expenses. He asks if the objection of cost is fitting for those who incur significant debt for higher education abroad, only to be confined to "golden cages" of employment, increasing their unnecessary expenses and abandoning the principles of simplicity and self-reliance. He asks if it is acceptable for a nation that readily bears the immense costs of pilgrimage sites and royal luxuries to lament the cost of an educational system that shapes its future.

Finally, Sanghavi concludes that the issue of high cost should not be a permanent problem for the Montessori method. As its results become more widespread and the method becomes more integrated into the country, arrangements will naturally be made to produce its tools and equipment locally and affordably. He emphasizes that as a country adopts a method, it will eventually need to produce its own resources, making them cheaper through competitive efforts. He believes that those who understand economics are aware of this phenomenon. Therefore, to ensure the continued success of the method's impactful experiments, it is crucial to avoid any actions that might dampen the enthusiasm of those conducting these experiments and to foster a clean environment that nurtures dedicated, fearless, and optimistic young individuals.