“How will children study diligently without competition? There must be some principle that drives them to put in more effort. Otherwise, it’s no fun.”

This is a common belief held by most parents and, quite often, by many teachers as well.

“Run! Let’s see who gets ahead! The one who comes first will get a prize!”

Such phrases are on everyone’s lips. From a very young age, children are fed this mindset at home: “He’ll finish before you… You eat quickly,” “Today I’ll reach home first,” and so on.

In schools, competition has held a place of honour for centuries and is academically justified. Rivalry in studies, awards for best acting in plays, competitions in speech, in sports—every developmental domain is pervaded by competition. Once students leave school and enter the world, they encounter an even harsher form of rivalry.

Many argue that competition must exist in schools. Their reasoning is that “We have to prepare children for the real world. In the race of life, they must learn to survive. If you create a serene, idealistic environment in school, how will that help in the race of the outside world? Each child must strive to overtake others and get ahead. This lesson must begin from the start.”

Some say, “Competition is an instinctive part of human nature. When a horse cart speeds by, the horse pulling the other cart runs faster. When you start running, a dog instinctively chases you. This instinct exists in humans as well. If it helps a person grow and develop, what’s the harm?” Thus, strong arguments are made in favour of competition, and its propagation is widespread.

Let us examine the claim that children won’t study well without competition.

Observe very young children. They pay no attention to others. Even if you say, “Look, that child is going ahead, come on,” a child who is picking flowers will continue doing so at their own pace. Even if others move ahead, they don’t care if they fall behind. They have no desire to do something just because others are doing it.

Similarly, even if no one else is moving ahead, a child who feels like running will run. One who enjoys playing with soil will stay engrossed in it. Another, curious about birds, will keep watching them. That is, they are absorbed in their own subjects of interest. They do not abandon their focus for the sake of others and are not motivated to act out of rivalry.

Furthermore, attention, effort, repeated attempts, continuous engagement—these are all observed in them. But what motivates this? Their inner interest, enjoyment, and attraction to the task itself. They are not ready to engage with such intensity and effort for any external reason.

If children are allowed to grow naturally in this state, we see that they choose tasks they enjoy, concentrate deeply, spend long periods on a single activity, and repeat it until they master it. When they make mistakes, they try harder and put in more effort. As a result, they achieve proficiency. Over time, their areas of interest expand—from soil, blocks, and beads to reading, writing, mathematics, science, and more. They enter these new territories eagerly and work hard to master them. The progress they make, the knowledge they acquire, brings them joy.

In essence, children’s curiosity, the urge to explore new areas, the tendency to overcome challenges, and the desire for mastery—are all natural instincts, which drive them to work hard and progress. Therefore, the belief that children won’t study unless there’s competition, or that they will study better due to rivalry, is not entirely true. Even in the absence of competition, children engage deeply in learning, work hard, and seek to master skills.

In fact, most people operate this way. Since a common curriculum is followed, individuals pursue other subjects of interest. In a competitive environment, they may study undesired subjects just enough to pass exams. Eventually, only subjects aligned with their interests stay with them; the rest are forgotten.

Now comes the question of the competitive world—the struggle and hustle of life. There is intense competition everywhere. Children need the strength to withstand this. Hence, we must teach them how to get ahead. But the competition of the world has two sides: one is progressing through personal growth; the other is getting ahead by any means, good or bad.

If the most skilled individuals rise to the top, society benefits. The best surgeon, the most capable engineer, the finest singer—these should be recognized as the best. To achieve this, people should be allowed to fully develop their natural talents and gain as much mastery as possible. Still, even after striving to the best of their abilities, differences in intelligence will remain. So, when someone who isn’t capable of being number one still tries to become number one through shortcuts—by seeking recommendations, pulling strings, influencing examiners, bribery, cheating to pass, or being unfairly selected for top positions—then, if this is what surviving the competition boils down to, educators must openly say that we aim to teach children not to survive in this way. If everyone agrees that the world is this way and so we must conform, then the race will only become more corrupt. Educational institutions must not encourage this.

That the world is competitive and children must be prepared for it is a valid point.

First, children must learn to compare. When they interact with others, they can see where they stand. If Ram always gets all answers right and Gopal gets one or two wrong, and Gopal realizes this, he may try to solve all problems correctly like Ram. With encouragement from teachers, Gopal will succeed. But if Sharad lacks the capacity, no amount of urging will help him get all answers right. Rather than improving, he will become more discouraged, fearful, and disheartened. However, if teachers encourage Sharad in subjects where he can do well, he may excel there and find self-worth and a unique place among peers.

Just as children can tell who is tall or short, they can gauge their abilities in different subjects. Teachers must help them strive for their personal best, based on their own capabilities. They should learn to compare their past and present selves.

In short, observing others’ skills and striving to acquire what one lacks is not wrong. When someone sees good embroidery and wants to do the same, it’s natural. Children behave similarly. They feel happy seeing someone else’s good work and naturally try to imitate it. Such competition is healthy.

But rivalry carries a certain bitterness. As success builds, it intoxicates. Where children should feel happy about others’ good work and strive to match it, instead, many feel envious. “He succeeded, I didn’t. He gets all the praise; I get nothing.” This leaves many children discouraged and upset.

Even the top achievers are not necessarily happy. They fear someone else might do just as well—or better. This constant anxiety prevents them from helping others. They won’t share their knowledge. Some may even go as far as stealing notebooks or sabotaging others’ work. Resentment and hatred take root. When a bright student falls ill during exams, others may secretly feel happy.

Thus, rivalry is harmful. It poisons the innocent happiness of children’s lives. Moreover, competition doesn’t always lead to true excellence. Rather than aiming to do their personal best, many children settle for being just better than their peers. Some very capable children may end up doing the bare minimum to maintain top rank, when they could do much more.

Therefore, if competition means comparison, learning from others, and being inspired to improve, it is good. Clearly, children learn more in the company of smart peers than they would alone. But competition often doesn’t mean that. It means beating others, getting ahead at all costs, securing something by denying it to others.

Usually, only the winner is praised and honored, while someone just a step behind gets nothing. As a result, instead of encouraging all children to try harder, only a few participate in the race, and the rest lose hope and give up. “How will I ever win a prize? What’s the point?”—this thought discourages them from even trying.

Many argue that competition is natural and instinctive. As mentioned earlier, being inspired by others is not wrong and should be encouraged. If four children are reading, the fifth feels like reading too. That’s fine. But the kind of rivalry promoted in schools emphasizes entirely different values. Public praise of the winner can lead to arrogance, and others may feel dejected and inferior.

In the absence of competition, children tend to help one another more. Those who are skilled are willing to teach; others are eager to learn from them. Together, they strive to attain excellence. Not everyone can be number one, but everyone can improve from where they were yesterday—and take joy in that progress.

Once the negative aspects of rivalry are removed, you can still hold races, organize exams, and arrange exhibitions. Through them, you can still identify areas of strength. Even without rivalry, children’s natural curiosity and desire for mastery drives them to eagerly learn new things and achieve proficiency.

(First published in Shikshan Patrika, December 1943)