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.)

Lessons from Maharashtra’s Political Realignment

Writer: Prism Advertising
Prism Advertising
Nov 25, 2024
3 min read
Eknath Shinde

Maharashtra’s political drama has long been a microcosm of India’s broader ideological tussles. From the formation of the Shiv Sena in 1966, built on the fiery rhetoric of Marathi pride, to its metamorphosis into a Hindutva powerhouse, the party’s trajectory mirrors the changing contours of Indian politics. Yet, as the latest election results suggest, the once-formidable bastion of the Thackerays is being redefined, not by its founders, but by its renegades.


The rise of Eknath Shinde, who broke away from Uddhav Thackeray’s faction in a dramatic coup in June 2022, has marked a turning point for the Sena. Shinde’s pragmatic approach, bolstered by his alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has allowed him to reposition the Shiv Sena within Maharashtra’s power structure. By leveraging Hindutva politics while simultaneously focusing on grassroots welfare schemes, Shinde has successfully appealed to urban and rural voters alike.


Conversely, Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena faction appears to have stumbled under the weight of its ideological contradictions. His decision to join hands with the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) under the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) banner in 2019 was a bold move, but one that alienated many of the Sena’s traditional Hindutva-leaning voters. The subsequent defections and internal discord within the MVA have further exposed the fragility of this alliance.


The election results are telling. While Shinde’s Shiv Sena, riding on the coattails of the BJP-led Mahayuti (Grand Alliance), has made significant inroads, Uddhav’s faction has struggled to maintain relevance. Shinde’s ability to communicate effectively with voters, coupled with schemes like the Mukhya Mantri Mahila Samman Yojana, which provided financial aid to women voters, showcased a canny blend of welfare and religious politics.


The pre-poll infusion of cash through targeted government schemes appears to have rendered the MVA’s campaign slogans hollow. For voters, the question of who represents the ‘real’ Shiv Sena seems to have been decisively answered in this election. Eknath Shinde’s success can be attributed to his meticulous communication with colleagues, his constant availability and the logistical support he extended for grassroots planning. By embracing the Mahayuti, voters have cast aside the opposition’s MVA’s narratives of corruption, often negative, against the ruling coalition. For instance, the Sena (UBT)’s relentless litany of accusations and jeering against the Shinde Sena faction following the split, dubbing them ‘gaddar’ (traitors), ‘Mindhe Sena’ and ‘Khoke politics’ — came a cropper as the electorate showed it couldn’t care less about rhetoric.


The electoral outcome also underlines the BJP’s continued mastery in narrative-setting. Urban voters, traditionally sceptical of coalition governments, found Shinde's pragmatism and BJP’s discipline more appealing than the ideological compromises of the MVA.


The MVA’s failure, on the other hand, lies in its inability to craft a cohesive narrative. Its attempts to position itself as the defender of constitutional values and secularism fell flat in the face of the BJP-Mahayuti’s relentless campaign that appealed to Maharashtra’s deep-rooted religious sentiments. Additionally, the MVA’s internal bickering and lack of grassroots engagement highlighted a disconnect with voters.


Maharashtra’s political realignment underscores a critical lesson: ideological rigidity without adaptability is a liability. While Bal Thackeray’s Shiv Sena once thrived on fiery speeches and symbolic protests, today’s electorate demands tangible results. Shinde’s rise signals a shift from identity politics to result-oriented governance, albeit underpinned by the rhetoric of Hindutva.


For Uddhav Thackeray, the path forward is fraught with challenges. Rebuilding the Shiv Sena’s base requires not just rekindling the Marathi identity but also finding a way to bridge the divide between his secular allies and his Hindutva roots. Meanwhile, Shinde’s ascendancy serves as a stark reminder that in Maharashtra’s fiercely competitive politics, survival depends not on legacy but on reinvention.


The stakes for both Sena factions—and indeed for Maharashtra—remain high. In a state where politics often sets the template for national trends, the Shiv Sena’s internal schism offers a fascinating case study of the intersection between ideology, leadership, and electoral pragmatism. Whether Uddhav can reclaim his legacy or whether Shinde will permanently reshape the Sena’s identity will define the contours of Maharashtra’s politics for years to come.


(The author is a practicing advocate at the Bombay High Court. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page