Montessori for all? Indian experiments in ‘child education’, 1920s–1970s

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the ‘Indianisation’, ‘nationalisation’, and ‘ruralisation’ of the Montessori method in India at the eve, and in the aftermath of the country’s political independence (1947). From 1914 onwards, Indian nationalists received Montessori’s ideas through publications, the networks of the new education movement, and the Theosophical Society. While innovative pre-schools for elite children worked closely with the ‘original’ method, the Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh (‘New Child Education Society’, NBSS) adapted it to local conditions (‘Indianisation’). The NBSS aimed to universalise Montessori-based child education, as a contribution to nation-building (‘nationalisation’). With the establishment of the Gram Bal Shiksha Kendra (Rural Child Education Centre), in 1945, the NBSS brought the country’s most marginalised into the modernising reach of the new state, furthering Gandhi’s vision of ‘rural reconstruction’ (‘ruralisation’). From these experiments, the institutional model of the Anganwadi emerged, through which today millions of Indian children receive integrated child development services.

摘要

本文探讨印度国家政治独立（1947年）前后，蒙特梭利教育法的“印度化”、“国家化”、和“农村化”进程。自1914年起，印度民族主义者通过相关出版物、新教育运动网络、以及神智协会接纳了蒙特梭利的理念。尽管为精英儿童所设的创新性幼儿园采用了“原版”方法，新儿童教育协会（Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh）则根据本土情况对该方法进行了调整（即“印度化”）。该协会希望将基于蒙特梭利教育法的儿童教育进行普及，以助力国家建构（即“国家化”）。随着1945年农村儿童教育中心（Gram Bal Shiksha Kendra）的成立，新儿童教育协会将本国最偏远的人口纳入到新政权的现代化范畴中，推进了甘地的“农村重建”愿景（即“农村化”）。这些实验衍生出儿童保健中心（Anganwadi）这一制度模式，使当今成千上万的印度儿童得以接受综合性儿童发展服务。

KEYWORDS:

• Early childhood education
• Montessori method
• Indian education
• integrated child development services
• Anganwadi

关键词:

• 早期儿童教育
• 蒙特梭利教育法
• 印度教育
• 综合性儿童发展服务
• 保健中心

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a research project on Indian women’s organisations as agents of educational reform, which I conducted as a member of the Transnational Research Group (TRG) on ‘Poverty and Education in India’ (2013–2017). The project was funded by the Max-Weber-Foundation. I want to thank all my TRG colleagues for the many insights and inspirations I gained from our discussions on poverty, inequality, education, and democracy.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Personal communication with Sandhyatai Karandikar, Vice President of the NBSS’s Managing Committee, on April 3 and April 5, 2017. I am deeply grateful to Mrs. Karandikar and her colleagues, for showing me the current operations of the NBSS, and sharing their accounts of its history.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jana Tschurenev

Dr. Jana Tschurenev is pursuing her Habilitation (State Doctorate) at the Centre for Modern Indian Studies (CeMIS), University of Göttingen, Germany. In 2009, she gained her PhD in Comparative Education, from Humboldt University Berlin. Afterwards, she worked as an assistant professor in Global History at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, and as lecturer and researcher at CeMIS, and the Institute of Asian and African Studies, Humboldt University Berlin. Her publications include the monograph Empire, Civil Society, and the Beginnings of Colonial Education in India, Cambridge University Press, 2019, the co-edited volume Biopolitik und Sittlichkeitsreform, Campus, 2014, and articles in the Paedagogica Historica, the Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, and the Jahrbuch Historische Bildungsforschung. Her major research interests are the transnational and (post-)colonial history of education, global history, social inequality, and intersectionality.