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.)

Will Trump’s First 100 Days see a new Power Play in South Asia?

Writer: Dr. Manisha Shrimali
Dr. Manisha Shrimali
Jan 8, 2025
4 min read

Updated: Jan 9, 2025

As Donald Trump returns to the White House for his second innings, South Asia braces for a major shift in its geopolitical order.

Donald Trump

When Donald Trump steps into the White House for a second term on January 20, 2025, his first 100 days is expected to send ripples across the globe, but perhaps nowhere more so than in South Asia. In this new phase of his presidency, the contours of global power dynamics—particularly those between India, China, and the United States—are expected to be set for a major recalibration. Trump, ever the epitome of unpredictability, is about to inject a new wave of volatility into the already fraught strategic triangle of these three giants.


Trump’s first term saw the U.S. positioning India as a key counterweight to China in Asia—a stance likely to deepen in the second term. His re-election has already triggered efforts to cement closer ties between Washington and New Delhi, with a focus on defence pacts, intelligence sharing, and energy exports. Trump, more pragmatic than ideological, has worked to weave India into Washington’s broader strategy of countering China’s ambitions. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Quad, a loose but increasingly relevant alliance of the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia, all united in their opposition to Beijing’s territorial expansion in the Indo-Pacific.


For India, this partnership promises much. It could modernize infrastructure, bolster defence capabilities, and provide access to a global market less dependent on China. Yet, the stakes are high. As India draws closer to the U.S., it risks being drawn into a more entrenched geopolitical rivalry. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash, in which Chinese and Indian troops skirmished, sharpened China’s perception of New Delhi’s growing alignment with Washington. Beijing views this as a direct challenge to its regional hegemony, and the result has been an increasingly aggressive stance along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).


The delicate balance for India is evident. While the U.S. provides strategic reassurance in the face of China’s growing military and economic power, this partnership also complicates India’s longstanding policy of non-alignment. Trump’s enthusiastic support of India in international forums like the G20 has elevated New Delhi’s global profile. However, the benefits of this alliance come at a cost: India’s evolving relationship with the U.S. is pushing the region toward deeper polarization. China, ever calculating, will no doubt seek to counterbalance this shift through its own alliances, particularly with Russia and Pakistan.


While the India-U.S. relationship holds promise, it is not without complications. India’s historical ties to Russia, particularly in the realm of defence, have long created friction with Washington. India’s dependence on Russian military systems, notably the S-400 missile defence system, has long been a contentious issue. The U.S. has already signalled its displeasure with these ties, threatening sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). The tension between these two superpowers highlights Trump’s dilemma in his second term: how to integrate India into a broader U.S. strategy while also acknowledging the deep, historical ties that New Delhi has with Moscow.


Xi Jinping, China’s ever-assertive leader, looms large in the background. The growing confrontation between the U.S. and China has placed India in a precarious position. As Washington escalates its criticism of Beijing—on issues ranging from human rights abuses in Xinjiang to its actions in Hong Kong—India finds itself with a diplomatic opening. Trump’s rhetoric against Beijing has created opportunities for India to reinforce its strategic alignment with the U.S., especially in the Indo-Pacific, where the emergence of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)—a group comprising the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia—has created a new framework for regional security, seeking to push back against China’s territorial expansion. The broader regional context will bear significant weight on Trump’s approach to South Asia.


Yet, as India embraces its newfound role in the U.S.-led alliance, it also faces the inconvenient reality of economic interdependence with China. Despite efforts to diversify supply chains away from China, India remains deeply dependent on Chinese imports, particularly in electronics and pharmaceuticals. The economic complexity of this relationship risks limiting India’s strategic flexibility, forcing it to navigate between the U.S. and China’s competing spheres of influence.


While Trump’s second term promises to intensify the U.S.-India relationship, it will also place India in a position where it must continually balance its historical ties to Russia with its emerging role as a partner of the U.S. This is especially true as Washington’s dual-front strategy seeks to isolate both Russian and Chinese influence on the global stage. India’s challenge will be to navigate these shifting alliances while preserving its autonomy in a rapidly changing world.


In this dynamic geopolitical landscape, Trump’s first 100 days will be critical in determining the future of South Asia. India, already a crucial player in the global order, will need to carefully balance its alliances with Washington and Moscow while maintaining its autonomy in the face of China’s growing assertiveness. On the other hand, how Trump handles the U.S.-China rivalry, especially in South Asia, will have far-reaching implications not just for India, but for the broader geopolitical order.


(The author is an educationalist. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page