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.)

Mumbai Stakes

Dec 16, 2025
2 min read

After nearly three years of institutional drift, Maharashtra’s civic democracy has been roused from suspension. The State Election Commission’s announcement of polling dates for long-overdue local body elections set for January 15, with results the following day ends a hiatus that began in 2022. The election to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) is less a routine municipal contest than a referendum on Maharashtra’s political future.


No municipal institution elsewhere in Asia commands such resources. The BMC’s projected budget for 2025–26 at Rs. 74,427 crore dwarfs that of any other civic body in India. Control of the BMC is therefore about patronage, policy leverage and the power to shape India’s financial capital. Winning Mumbai confers an advantage that echoes far beyond its ward boundaries.


Sensing this, the ruling BJP-led Mahayuti has chosen unity over grievance. After months of acrimony, the BJP, Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena and Ajit Pawar’s NCP have agreed to fight the BMC together. Coordination committees have been formed; past allegations of poaching and sabotage have been quietly shelved. For the BJP, this election is unfinished business. In 2017 it fell just short, winning 82 of 227 seats - two fewer than the then-undivided Shiv Sena - despite contesting alone. Since then, the party’s organisational reach in Maharashtra has grown, and alliance arithmetic now looks kinder. The price of unity has been accommodation as Shinde’s Sena has staked claim to 90–100 seats, forcing the BJP to temper its ambitions in exchange for a plausible path to power.


The Opposition’s story is messier. The most intriguing subplot is the thaw between the Thackeray cousins. Uddhav Thackeray of the Shiv Sena (UBT) and Raj Thackeray of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, once locked in bitter rivalry, now appear united by fear of extinction. For Uddhav, the BMC may be the last credible platform from which to reclaim relevance after the 2022 party split. For Raj, the election is framed as a defence of Marathi identity against both national parties and migrant politics. Sentiment, nostalgia and linguistic pride are being marshalled in tandem.


Yet, this rapprochement threatens to fracture the broader Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA). The Congress has drawn a red line, warning it will go solo if the MNS is formally inducted. The Congress is understandably anxious that Raj Thackeray’s strident politics could alienate minorities, Dalits and north Indian voters who form a crucial part of the Congress base in Mumbai. A solo Congress run, however, risks splintering the anti-BJP vote. Data from the 2024 assembly elections suggest that without MNS support, the opposition may struggle to reach the BMC’s majority mark of 114 seats, inadvertently smoothing the Mahayuti’s path.


Sharad Pawar, the MVA’s veteran balancer, reportedly favours keeping the coalition intact even if that means embracing the MNS. Whether such alchemy is possible remains unclear. What is certain is that after three years of democratic suspension, the BMC election will test alliances and settle past scores.

Comments


bottom of page