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.)

Where Cricket Died, Was Resurrected, and Died Again

Jun 7
3 min read

Lord’s —The Home of Cricket. A place of tradition, cucumber sandwiches, and polite murmurs of “well played, old chap.” Yesterday? It looked like someone had spiked the pitch with revenge, LSD, and a dodgy batch of swing-friendly weather. Sixteen wickets fell. Sixteen. On Day One. In a Test match. At the spiritual home of the five-day snoozefest. I haven’t seen this many collapses since my last attempt at baking a soufflé.


New Zealand won the toss and, with the wisdom of a man who’s seen too many cloudy English mornings, elected to bowl. Smart move, one must say given the treacherous weather conditions. England’s top order treated the new ball like it was radioactive. By lunch, they were 24/1 after a rain delay, which was basically the universe giving everyone a chance to grab another pint and reconsider their life choices. Then the fun really started.


England managed a grand total of 140. Harry Brook top-scored with 56, looking like the only bloke who remembered this was a Test match and not a village T20 exhibition on a beach. Everyone else? Absolute carnage. The Kiwi seamers, led by the giant Kyle Jamieson (5-62), swung the ball more than a drunken uncle at a village wedding. Jamie Smith and others joined the party. It was less “Test cricket” and more “audition for a horror film called The Pitch That Swung Back.”


But wait! England weren’t done embarrassing themselves – or rather, they were about to redeem themselves in the most chaotic way possible. Ollie Robinson, back after his sabbatical (or whatever he calls two years away), decided to play the hero. He took 4-10 as New Zealand slumped to 61-6. Yes, you read that right. The tourists were 79 behind with four wickets left. Glenn Phillips was left stranded on 31 not out, probably wondering if he should just declare the innings himself and go get a kebab.


The pitch? A green seamer that behaved like it had a personal grudge against batsmen. The ball was swinging like a pendulum on steroids. Commentators were reaching for words like “unplayable,” “diabolical,” and “can we please have a batting track for once in our lives?” Meanwhile, fans on social media were torn between declaring it the greatest day of Test cricket ever and demanding a steward’s inquiry into whether the groundsman had been bribed by the bowling coaches.


Sarcasm aside (who am I kidding, it’s the whole point), this was pure comedy gold. Ben Stokes’ birthday treat? Watching his team get skittled then skittle the opposition. Tom Latham must have been regretting his decision to bowl first by tea – or was he? At 61-6, it felt like both teams had agreed to a secret pact: “Let’s make this the shortest, most ridiculous Test in history so we can all go to the pub early.”


Cricket purists are clutching their pearls, muttering about “the soul of the game.” Mate, the soul of the game showed up, took one look at the conditions, said “nah,” and left after 16 victims. This wasn’t cricket; it was a demolition derby with pads on. At this rate, the match will be over by lunch on Day 3, and we’ll all be left wondering what the hell just happened.


If you’re a neutral fan, congratulations – you just witnessed peak chaos cricket. If you’re English or Kiwi, my condolences (and a stiff drink). Day 2 promises more of the same: more edges, more plays and misses, and probably a few more batsmen questioning their career choices. Lord’s has never been this entertaining. Or this traumatic in its long history.


Roll on. May the survivors (if any) find some dignity. Or at least a straighter bat. With more and more Test matches ending in under three days, it seems more likely that the oldest format of the game may just tip its hat and bow down to the T20 Tamasha version of the game.


(The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai.)

1 Comment


Valerii
Valerii
Jun 13

Chess has a unique place in Indian sports culture because it rewards patience, calculation, and long-term thinking rather than physical strength alone. The country has produced many talented players who have inspired a new generation to take up the game, helping chess become more popular among young competitors. What makes the sport especially interesting is that every move can completely change the direction of a match, creating constant opportunities for analysis and discussion. While exploring different forms of strategy-based competition and digital sports entertainment, I came https://parimatch-aviator.net/en-in/app/  offers a mobile app for sports analysis and interactive games on Android and iOS, which seemed like an interesting resource to stay informed about trends in predictions and simulations. In conclusion, whether you…

Edited
Like
bottom of page