top of page

By:

Anil D. Salve

21 March 2026 at 8:11:09 pm

A Drought of Wisdom in an Ocean of Information

We live in an age where information is everywhere. With a single click, we can access news from across the world, thousands of opinions, countless videos and endless claims. Knowledge has never been so accessible. Yet, in this overwhelming flow of information, something increasingly scarce is discernment-the ability to distinguish what deserves our belief from what deserves our doubt. Information and knowledge are not the same. Reading, watching or hearing something does not automatically...

A Drought of Wisdom in an Ocean of Information

We live in an age where information is everywhere. With a single click, we can access news from across the world, thousands of opinions, countless videos and endless claims. Knowledge has never been so accessible. Yet, in this overwhelming flow of information, something increasingly scarce is discernment-the ability to distinguish what deserves our belief from what deserves our doubt. Information and knowledge are not the same. Reading, watching or hearing something does not automatically make it true. We need the ability to verify information, understand its context, recognise its purpose and only then form an opinion. In the digital age, this ability has become one of the most important forms of wisdom. Social media has transformed the way information travels. WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook and other platforms have made communication faster, wider and more accessible. But the same speed that connects society can also overwhelm it. Information often reaches us before facts do. A headline is read before the full story. A short video is watched without knowing what happened before or after it. A photograph is circulated without its original context. A message arrives with the familiar words, “Forwarded as received,” and within minutes it may reach thousands of people. By the time the truth catches up, the rumour may already have done its work. The problem becomes even more serious when misinformation is deliberately created and circulated. Rumours may be planted not merely to mislead individuals but to divert public attention from an important issue, create suspicion, damage someone's reputation or push society towards a particular narrative. A distraction does not always need to be completely false. Sometimes a small piece of truth is mixed with exaggeration, selective facts or emotional language. The result can be more powerful than an outright lie because it appears believable. This is how narratives are manufactured. Social media platforms can become powerful tools in this process. A repeated claim begins to look familiar, and familiarity is often mistaken for truth. A provocative post attracts attention. Thousands of reactions create the impression that “everyone” believes it. One emotional video triggers another, comments intensify the mood, and before facts have an opportunity to speak, public sentiment may have already shifted. This is where mob psychology enters the picture. A society can move from calm to anger, suspicion to trust, or optimism to fear with surprising speed. People who would ordinarily think carefully may react differently when they see thousands of others expressing outrage, fear or hostility. The individual begins to follow the crowd, and the crowd begins to reinforce the individual. The danger is not limited to negative emotions. The same mechanism can also be used positively-to mobilise people for social causes, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, public awareness and community action. Technology itself is neither wise nor foolish. Its impact depends on how information is created, amplified and consumed. The greatest danger, therefore, is not that we have too much information. It is that we may lose the habit of thinking while consuming it. We are increasingly becoming consumers of information rather than creators of thought. Everyone has access to information today, but access does not necessarily mean understanding. The boundaries between a rumour and a report, an opinion and a fact, popularity and truth are becoming increasingly blurred. A post does not become true because thousands of people have liked it. A video does not become evidence merely because it has gone viral. An opinion does not become a fact because it is expressed confidently. An idea does not become correct simply because it confirms what we already believe. This last point deserves particular attention. We often accept information not because it is accurate, but because it is comfortable. We are naturally attracted to information that confirms our existing beliefs and suspicious of information that challenges them. In the digital world, this tendency can be amplified by algorithms that repeatedly expose us to content similar to what we have already watched, liked or shared. Gradually, we may find ourselves living inside an information bubble where we hear many voices-but mostly voices that agree with us. That is not diversity of information. It is an illusion of certainty. Discernment does not mean doubting everything. It means thinking before believing. It means asking simple but powerful questions: Who is saying this? What is the evidence? What is the context? What may be missing? Who benefits if I believe it? And have I heard the other side? These questions may take only a few seconds, but they can prevent hours, days or even years of misunderstanding. This responsibility is particularly important for the younger generation. Children today are growing up in an environment of unprecedented information exposure. They can encounter more information in a few hours than earlier generations might have encountered in weeks. Therefore, education cannot merely teach students how to collect, remember and reproduce information. It must teach them how to question, verify, analyse and interpret it. A student who can write the correct answer in an examination may be academically successful. But a student who knows how to ask the right question is better prepared for life. The classroom of the future must therefore produce not merely informed students, but thinking citizens. They must learn that forwarding a message is also a form of responsibility. Sharing a post is not an innocent act when it can affect someone's reputation, create public fear or influence social behaviour. The challenge becomes even greater in the age of Artificial Intelligence. AI can generate information, images, audio and video with extraordinary speed and sophistication. The distinction between what is real and what merely appears real may become increasingly difficult. In such a world, human judgment becomes more valuable, not less. Technology can produce an answer in seconds. It cannot automatically tell us whether that answer deserves our trust. Some answers require experience. Some require context. Many require the ability to think independently. We have more information, more technology and more connectivity than any previous generation. Yet our real challenge is to preserve something technology cannot manufacture for us: the capacity to think for ourselves. The ocean of information will only become larger. The question will no longer be, “How much information do we have?” The more important questions will be: What should we accept? What should we question? What should we verify? And what should we reject? No technology can completely answer these questions for us. No number of likes can substitute for evidence. No viral trend can replace judgment. No majority can turn misinformation into truth. That responsibility belongs to human beings. Information can tell us what happened. Discernment helps us understand what it means, why it happened, what may be missing from the story and how we should respond. Perhaps, therefore, the greatest educational challenge of our time is not to teach people how to find more information. They already know how to do that. The greater challenge is to teach them how to pause-to pause before believing, to pause before reacting, to pause before forwarding and to pause before joining the crowd. Because sometimes the most intelligent response to information is not an immediate reaction, but a moment of reflection. The ocean is already around us. It is growing deeper every day. What we need now is not more information to swim through it-but the wisdom to know which direction to take. (The writer is the Principal of Podar International School, Ausa, Latur. Views personal.)

A Rollercoaster of Runs, Wickets, Whoopsies

Writer: Waleed Hussain
Waleed Hussain
Aug 3, 2025
3 min read

Five Tests, a shiny new trophy named after two cricketing demigods, and enough drama to rival a Bollywood blockbuster. As the dust settles on this latest chapter of India-England rivalry, let’s unpack the key takeaways for Shubman Gill’s young brigade, with a sprinkle of humour and a generous dash of sarcasm. Spoiler alert: it’s a mixed bag of brilliance, blunders, and some serious “what were you thinking?” moments.


India’s batting was like a Diwali sparkler—dazzling at times, but occasionally fizzling out when you least expect it. Yashasvi Jaiswal, Shubman Gill, and Sai Sudharsan lit up the series like firecrackers, reminding us of the Tendulkar-Dravid-Laxman era when centuries were as common as chai stalls in Mumbai. Jaiswal’s fluent strokeplay and Gill’s marathon knocks—especially his record-breaking 269 in the second Test—were pure class. Sudharsan, the new kid on the block, chipped in with half-centuries, proving he’s not just here to carry drinks. Rishabh Pant, the human equivalent of a T20 highlight reel, hobbled through injuries to smack a brave 54 in the fourth Test, cartwheeling his way into our hearts (and probably the physio’s nightmares).


But, oh boy, the collapses! India’s middle order had more meltdowns than a toddler denied ice cream. The first Test saw them go from dreaming of 550-600 to losing seven wickets for 41 runs faster than you can say “tea break.” The fourth Test was no better—314/5 to 349/9 in a blink, as if the batters decided to gift England a comeback wrapped in a bow. Seven batters making between 25 and 65 in one innings? That’s not a scorecard; it’s a masterclass in “how to start well and then forget how to finish.” The pitch was tricky, sure, but when has that ever been an excuse for Indian batters who’ve grown up on dustbowls? Takeaway: the top order is a Ferrari, but the middle order needs to stop driving like it’s stuck in Mumbai traffic.


Bumrah’sbrilliance

If Jasprit Bumrah were a superhero, he’d be Captain Unplayable, zipping through England’s batting like a laser-guided missile. His stock deliveries in the third Test, sneaking through Jofra Archer’s bat-pad gap, were poetry in motion—Dukes ball edition. Mohammed Siraj, the fiery fast bowler, and Akash Deep had their moments, but let’s be honest: they were more like supporting actors in Bumrah’s Oscar-worthy performance. Siraj’s good-length balls and Deep’s nip-backers kept England honest, but consistency was as elusive as a sunny day in London.

The spinners? Oh, dear Ravindra Jadeja, you’re a national treasure, but your “tossed up nicely” deliveries were blocked more often than a spam email. England’s batters treated India’s spin attack like a warm-up session, with Brydon Carse and Jamie Smith casually flicking singles like they were swatting flies. The pace trio carried the load, but the spinners need to rediscover their mojo—perhaps a quick pilgrimage to Chennai’s turning tracks might help. Takeaway: Bumrah is a one-man army, but the bowling unit needs to stop relying on him like he’s the only guy who knows the Wi-Fi password.


Catches win matches

India’s fielding was a comedy of errors that would make even Charlie Chaplin wince. Yashasvi Jaiswal’s half-stop at mid-on was a valiant effort, but the number of times India let balls slip through their fingers was criminal. England’s Ollie Pope and Ben Duckett must’ve been sending thank-you notes for the extra lives. Sure, there were moments of brilliance—Shardul Thakur escaping a run-out thanks to a diving Brydon Carse missing the stumps—but overall, India’s fielding was like watching a drunk uncle attempt yoga at a family reunion.


The huddle before England’s openers came out in the first Test showed intent, but intent doesn’t catch balls. With Rishabh Pant ruled out of fielding due to injury, India’s keeping duties took a hit, and the slip cordon looked like they were practicing social distancing. Takeaway: India needs to channel their inner Jonty Rhodes, because dropped catches and sluggish fielding are the fastest way to turn a winnable match into a “what if” sob story.


The big picture

This Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy was a baptism by fire for India’s young squad. With stalwarts like Kohli and Sharma absent, Gill’s captaincy showed promise but also inexperience. The batting firepower of Jaiswal, Gill, and Sudharsan is a glimpse into a golden future, but they need to learn how to close out innings without imploding. The bowling attack, led by Bumrah’s genius, needs more consistent support from the spinners and pacers to avoid burnout. And the fielding? Let’s just say India could use a few extra fielding drills—or at least a motivational speech from Yuvraj Singh circa 2007.


(The Writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page