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.)

Muslim Mistrust

Nov 14, 2024
3 min read

Updated: Nov 15, 2024

Muslim Mistrust

With barely a week left for the November 20 Assembly elections, a growing sense of disillusionment is sweeping through Mumbai’s Muslim community. Constituting roughly 20 percent of the city’s population, Muslims hold sway over key constituencies in areas like Byculla, Mahim, Malad and Dharavi. Yet, despite their electoral clout, Muslim voters find themselves facing a stark underrepresentation on the candidate lists of both the ruling Mahayuti alliance and the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA). This frustration, compounded by unmet expectations from the MVA, whose support Muslims had decisively swung in the Lok Sabha elections earlier this year, is likely to shape the outcome of the upcoming vote.


There are around ten Assembly seats in the city with a Muslim majority or sizeable Muslim population (over 25 percent). However, the representation of Muslims on the candidate lists of the state’s major political parties has remained woefully low, sparking a growing sense of alienation among the community. The Congress has fielded just four Muslim candidates while the ruling NCP led by Deputy CM Ajit Pawar faction has nominated a handful. The Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT) has fielded just one Muslim candidate - Harun Khan in Versova – despite the fact that the minority community had enthusiastically gravitated towards Thackeray in the Lok Sabha polls in May-June this year.


Despite the MVA’s claims of inclusivity, the lack of fresh Muslim faces has left many voters feeling let down. In Mumbai, many had hoped for more than just token representation from parties they had rallied behind during the 2024 Lok Sabha election, where the MVA, bolstered by significant Muslim support, won four of the six seats in the city. However, as the Assembly polls draw near, the community is increasingly questioning whether they have been taken for granted.


Smaller parties like the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) have provided more space for Muslim candidates, with the VBA nominating nine Muslims and AIMIM putting forward four, yet these parties lack the infrastructure and political reach to make a significant dent in the larger political picture.


The mood in the Muslim community ahead of the Assembly poll is generally to cast in their lot with a minority candidate of whichever party. In this light, it will be interesting to see if the VBA and the AIMIM, once allies but now contesting independently, can woo Muslim voters to their fold from the legacy parties.


The absence of Muslim candidates in key constituencies is glaring. Byculla, for example, is a Muslim-majority area where the MVA could have fielded a strong Muslim candidate, but instead, it chose to field Manoj Jamsutkar, a former Shiv Sena corporator from Nagpada. Byculla, which had a significant role in helping MVA candidate Arvind Sawant win the South Mumbai Lok Sabha seat in May, is now set to see a showdown between the Shiv Sena’s Yamini Jadhav and Jamsutkar.


Observers claim the discontent runs deeper in constituencies where the Muslim vote had played a pivotal role in the past. Areas like Dharavi, Byculla, and Sion Koliwada had seen significant Muslim mobilization during the Lok Sabha elections, helping the MVA in securing crucial seats.


The MVA’s failure to deliver on its promises of inclusivity may very well lead to a splintering of the Muslim vote as many in the community now struggle to find a political party or leader that truly represents their interests.

Comments


bottom of page