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.)

Does the Global Indigenous Narrative Apply to India?

Writer: Sharad Chavan
Sharad Chavan
Aug 6
3 min read

Part 2: The historical experiences that shaped the global indigenous movement were very different from India's own civilisational journey.

Part 1 examined the origin of World Indigenous Peoples' Day and the historical circumstances that led to its recognition by the United Nations. In this part, we examine how that global framework has been interpreted in India and why it has become the subject of debate.


Around the world, there are nearly 440 million indigenous peoples (Adivasi), of whom about 110 million are from India. It is therefore natural that Adivasi communities in India should wish to celebrate this global day. At the same time, a growing ideology claims that anyone who questions its observance is an enemy of the Adivasi cause. The truth, however, is that foreign forces seek to exploit these sentiments to weaken national unity under the guise of goodwill.


We, the Adivasi people, are the true custodians of this land and have lived here since time immemorial. Therefore, August 9 is celebrated as the day of reclaiming our rights and restoring our sovereignty. It is presented as the day of our resurgence after foreign Aryan invaders subjugated us and deprived us of our rights. World Adivasi Day is portrayed as a tribute to our identity, our dignity and our enduring bond with this land.


This ideology has influenced not only sections of the public but also the tribal departments of several states, including Maharashtra. As a result, official circulars have been issued encouraging the celebration of this day at the government level.


It is surprising that the world turned its attention to indigenous peoples only towards the end of the 20th century, whereas independent India recognised the rights of its tribal communities through the Constitution itself. From the very beginning, constitutional safeguards sought to protect their dignity and ensure justice. Over the years, various commissions and state governments implemented measures based on the recommendations of the Niyogi Commission, including the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), individual and community forest rights, land acquisition safeguards and forest conservation laws.


The government's role has always been to protect and uplift tribal communities while strengthening the spirit of brotherhood among all Indians. Our tribal communities have traditionally lived in forests and remote regions, preserving their customs and way of life, yet they have always remained an integral part of this nation. Despite differences in language, dress, food and local traditions, India has remained united through its shared history, civilisation and cultural heritage.


We are all Indians. Our tribal and forest-dwelling communities have always been inseparably linked with our religion, our motherland, our history and our culture. Many thinkers around the world, including those associated with the United Nations, have acknowledged that the issue of indigenous peoples does not arise separately in India. The historical circumstances that existed in many other countries do not apply to India.


Therefore, India need not adopt the policies and objectives framed for indigenous peoples elsewhere. Unfortunately, we are still not entirely free from the colonial mindset inherited from British rule. To strengthen their hold over this country, the British spread many falsehoods through education and administration. One of the greatest was the claim that India had never been one nation. They also propagated the theory that Aryans came from outside India, conquered the original inhabitants and destroyed their religion, culture and land.


Although the British failed to understand India, many of these colonial narratives continued even after independence. They found support among sections of the Congress, progressives, the Left, missionaries and other political and social groups. As a result, divisions between urban, rural and tribal communities widened. Separate identities were encouraged, and respect for India's history, traditions, culture and civilisational heritage gradually weakened.


This is why we believe that India's tribal communities cannot be viewed through the same historical lens as the indigenous peoples of countries shaped by European settler colonialism. Our history is different, our civilisational experience is different, and our constitutional approach has also been different. It is this distinction that must be understood before accepting the ideology surrounding World Adivasi Day.


(The writer is a social worker engaged in tribal welfare.  Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page