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.)

The UK's New Asylum Framework: The Logic and Implications

Writer: Sumant Vidwans
Sumant Vidwans
Nov 30, 2025
3 min read

Britain has unveiled its most far-reaching asylum reforms in decades, reshaping how the country grants refuge amid rising public frustration over immigration.

The UK government has announced its most significant asylum reforms in decades, fundamentally reshaping how the country grants refuge amid growing public frustration over rising immigration, which has fuelled protests nationwide this year.


Before 2020, Britain’s net migration usually ranged between 200,000 and 300,000 a year, according to the ONS. But after Brexit took effect, the UK saw a marked rise in undocumented immigration, with net migration reaching 906,000 in the 12 months to June 2023.


Over 100,000 people now live in taxpayer-funded asylum accommodation, and many refugees remain unemployed for years after receiving protection. In 2024, UK asylum claims rose by 18 per cent, while across Europe they fell by 13 per cent.


The reforms introduce three major changes to Britain’s asylum system. First, refugee status will no longer be indefinite. Those granted protection will receive 30-month permits, regularly reviewed, and their status can be revoked—and removal pursued—if the Home Office deems their home country safe. This marks a clear break from the current five-year permits that lead to indefinite leave to remain.


Second, the path to British citizenship will stretch from five to twenty years, creating one of the longest settlement routes in any major asylum-receiving nation and requiring refugees to maintain their status through multiple review cycles.


Third, the government will end the statutory duty to provide asylum seeker support—housing and weekly allowances introduced under EU law in 2005—meaning accommodation and financial help will no longer be guaranteed for those awaiting decisions.


The appeals system will also be streamlined: one claim, one appeal, handled by a new independent body.


Why now?

The new policy is driven by public opinion, political pressure, and structural limits. Public concern about immigration has risen sharply across Europe, and in the UK it has become voters’ top issue—overtaking even the economy.


Politically, the government faces growing pressure: immigration dominates domestic debate, parties are internally divided, and competition from more restrictive actors is strong. The plan draws heavily on Denmark’s strict asylum model, seen as a politically successful example after Denmark’s centre-left government retained support despite tough measures.


There is also a structural constraint. Post-Brexit, the UK can no longer use the EU’s Dublin system to transfer asylum seekers to other states. This limits the ability to redirect secondary movements and pushes policymakers to focus on reducing domestic pull factors rather than relying on external processing.


European comparison

While the UK’s proposed asylum framework takes cues from Denmark’s strict model, approaches across Europe differ widely. Germany has long received large numbers of asylum applications and emphasises integration, though it too faces pressure to tighten controls. Sweden, once known for its liberal stance, has adopted more restrictive measures after years of high arrivals. Southern European countries—especially Spain, Italy, and Greece—act as primary entry points to the EU and struggle with the sheer volume of arrivals, prompting calls for more equitable burden-sharing.


Across the continent, the common thread is a tension between international legal obligations, public and political pressure to control borders, and the challenge of managing humanitarian flows—producing a fragmented and continually shifting policy landscape.


Top source

Over the past decade, most asylum seekers arriving in the UK have come from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh, and Syria. Among small boat arrivals—which make up about one-third of all asylum claims—the main nationalities have been Afghan, Syrian, Eritrean, Iranian, and Sudanese.


However, many people who apply for asylum initially enter the UK on legal visas such as study, work, or tourist permits. Pakistan stands out here, as it has become the most common nationality among such applicants. Recent data shows that around 40,739 migrants claimed asylum in 2024 after arriving on legitimate visas. Of these, Pakistan accounted for more than 11,000 applications, with about 10,000 Pakistani nationals entering on temporary visas before switching to asylum claims.


Britain’s asylum reforms mark a decisive shift towards one of Europe’s most restrictive refugee systems. With these stricter measures, the UK has moved beyond even Denmark’s tough model. The changes stem from several factors: rising public concern over immigration, post-Brexit limits on transferring asylum seekers to EU states, and political competition from harder-line parties. As European nations face similar pressures, the UK’s approach may become either a cautionary tale or a template—depending on whether it meets its aims without eroding core principles of international refugee protection.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page