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.)

Corruption and the Cost of Truth: The Men Who Framed Col. Purohit

Aug 7, 2025
5 min read

A multi-part investigation into how the 2008 Malegaon blasts was turned into a political weapon, a narrative war and a cover for deeper conspiracies involving India’s most wanted fugitive and the Maoist underground.


The Malegaon Files - Part 4


From the Mumbai underworld to men in uniform, the Malegaon case reveals how India’s terror investigations were consumed by political rot and institutional betrayal.

With last week’s acquittal of Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit and others in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, a long and deliberately muddied chapter in India’s counter-terrorism saga finally appears to have reached closure. Yet the ordeal Lt. Col. Purohit endured still stands as one of the most egregious abuses of intelligence and policing power in recent memory. His story lays bare a disturbing matrix of concocted evidence, manipulated forensic reports and a nexus of compromised officials who, shielded by political patronage, appeared not just intent on framing him but on erasing him altogether.


One of the murkiest elements in this saga centres around a man named Shekhar Bagde. In 2008, Bagde was a little-known Assistant Police Inspector (API) in Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). Today, he is an Assistant Commissioner in Thane Police, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Mumbai’s ‘encounter specialists’ - officers such as Daya Nayak, Pradeep Sharma and the late Vijay Salaskar, who became notorious for their theatrical operations, and whose reputations oscillated between heroic vigilantism and institutionalised criminality.


According to multiple sources within India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA), Bagde was the one who physically planted the RDX (military-grade explosive) inside the Nashik home of Sudhakar Chaturvedi, a Military Intelligence (MI) informer. That bomb would be cited as primary evidence in the framing of Col. Purohit and others in the Malegaon case. The question that investigators and observers have asked ever since is where did Bagde get that RDX?


The answer, if true, is astonishing. NIA officials now allege that the RDX Bagde used came not from any contemporary source but from the very stockpile used in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, one of the deadliest terror attacks in India’s history. That explosives from that infamous operation, orchestrated by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and his Pakistani handlers, were still available to local law enforcement agencies years later is damning in itself. That it may have been deployed by those same agencies to frame Indian Army officers marks an even deeper rot.


Yet, far from being disciplined or dismissed, Bagde appears to have prospered. His career trajectory mirrors that of many controversial police officers in Maharashtra, who, regardless of scandals, have gone on to amass considerable power and wealth. Bagde was reportedly caught red-handed on October 3, 2008, while planting RDX at Chaturvedi’s residence. The incident, if properly prosecuted, could have dismantled the entire narrative of “saffron terror” and exonerated Purohit from the start. Instead, it was hushed up.


Crucially, the forensic analysis of that RDX and of multiple blasts in 2006 and 2008 was consistently routed through one man: Dr. Subhash Madhukar Bakre, a forensic expert with a curious history. In nearly every high-profile blast case in Maharashtra during that period, Bakre appeared on the scene, regardless of jurisdiction. That was no coincidence. As insiders later revealed, senior ATS officers like ACP Mohan Kulkarni bypassed the standard chain of command and wrote directly to Bakre, effectively handpicking a forensic specialist to tailor reports as required.


Such procedural irregularities point to a broader pattern of fabrication. The correct forensic protocol demands that any such request be routed to the Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, who then assigns the case. Instead, Bakre was summoned personally, a practice that undermined both the independence and the credibility of forensic investigations. According to whistleblowers, Bakre routinely produced findings that aligned with ATS narratives, no matter how implausible.


Meanwhile, Bagde’s rise within the force seemed impervious to public criticism or internal scrutiny. He is now reportedly a member of Maharashtra’s notorious ‘100 Crore Club’ - a term coined during a separate corruption scandal involving former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh and the now-suspended API Sachin Vaze. The phrase refers to the practice of systematic extortion by senior police officials, each of whom allegedly collected or laundered Rs. 100 crore or more while in service.


Multiple political leaders have accused Bagde of operating far outside the law. Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader and current Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar once held a press conference detailing Bagde’s alleged assets: a three-storey commercial building in Nashik, luxury flats in Thane and Navi Mumbai, properties in his father’s and brother’s names, agricultural land in Igatpuri, and even a food mall near Khalapur on the Mumbai-Pune Expressway.


Despite these explosive allegations, no action has been taken against him. Part of the reason, insiders suggest, is that Bagde has cultivated allies across political parties. Though named and shamed by both Ajit Pawar and NCP (SP) leader Jitendra Awhad, Bagde was reportedly close to senior NCP leader and former minister Nawab Malik, who himself has faced serious allegations involving the underworld. Malik’s personal assistant is said to be Bagde’s brother. Their joint real estate holdings and the use of a shared chartered accountant to launder black money underscore the deep fusion of crime, politics and policing in this case.


Even the erstwhile Mahayuti government that was led by Eknath Shinde had appeared unwilling to touch Bagde. His proximity to Shinde and his MP son, Shrikant, had granted him political impunity. It is a grim reflection of how institutional mechanisms meant to safeguard accountability have been co-opted by those in power.


The deceit, however, does not end there. When confronted by NIA officials during the re-investigation of the Malegaon blast case, Bagde attempted a sentimental defence. He claimed that, as the son of an army officer, he could never betray the armed forces by falsely implicating them. But even that turned out to be a lie. The NIA found no record of his father ever having served in the military. He was a civilian employee, not a commissioned officer. The claim was yet another invention – just like the RDX, the forensic reports and the confessions that were later retracted.


What emerges from this part of the story is not merely a tale of rogue officers and corrupt politicians. It is the story of how the institutions responsible for national security - the police, forensic labs, investigative agencies and even sections of the judiciary - can be hijacked to serve political goals. In this case, the goal was to fabricate a narrative of “Hindu terror,” thus diverting public scrutiny away from Islamist groups with transnational links and recasting the threat in terms more palatable to certain political ideologies.


Lt. Col. Purohit’s framing was a calibrated act. That it involved serving policemen, senior ATS officials, politically connected forensic experts and possibly even members of the political class, raises deeply uncomfortable questions.


The legacy of the Malegaon case is not just about one man’s lost years. It is about the erosion of public trust in the very apparatus that claims to protect the republic. As long as officers like Shekhar Bagde continue to operate with impunity, and as long as forensic experts like Subhash Bakre are allowed to tailor scientific evidence to political requirements, the potential for systemic injustice remains frighteningly real.


Justice may have finally arrived for Lt. Col. Purohit. But the architecture of impunity that ensnared him still stands, waiting for its next target.


(The writer, who goes by his nom de plume of Akela, is a senior investigative journalist based in Mumbai.)

Comments


bottom of page