The BJP has called for an apology from the Congress party over claims regarding Pakistan's army chief, General Asim Munir, being invited to a military parade in the United States. The controversy arose after Congress leader Jairam Ramesh asserted that this invitation represented a significant diplomatic setback for India. However, the US government has denied these claims, stating that no foreign military leaders were invited to the event.

In response to these allegations, BJP officials accused Congress of spreading misinformation and acting as a "mouthpiece" for Pakistan. Nishikant Dubey from the BJP criticized Ramesh's statements and questioned the effectiveness of previous Congress-led governments' foreign policies. He highlighted historical instances where he believed Congress failed to address issues related to Khalistani extremism.

Ramesh defended his position by emphasizing the implications of inviting someone who had previously made incendiary remarks just before terror attacks in India. The situation escalated with social media posts criticizing Congress for allegedly embarrassing India on an international stage due to this misinformation.

Original article

The provided text is a prime example of biased reporting, with multiple forms of manipulation evident throughout. One of the most striking aspects is the political bias, which leans heavily towards the right-wing ideology of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The text begins by stating that the BJP has called for an apology from the Congress party, immediately establishing a confrontational tone and implying that the Congress party is at fault. This sets the stage for a narrative that will criticize and delegitimize Congress's position.

The language used to describe Congress leader Jairam Ramesh's statements is also revealing. He is accused of "spreading misinformation" and acting as a "mouthpiece" for Pakistan, which implies that he is intentionally deceiving people and serving foreign interests. This kind of language creates a negative connotation around Ramesh and his party, making them appear untrustworthy and unpatriotic. In contrast, BJP officials are portrayed as truth-tellers who are simply correcting Congress's mistakes.

The text also exhibits cultural bias in its framing of India-Pakistan relations. The mention of Khalistani extremism serves to further demonize Pakistan and reinforce India's nationalist narrative. By highlighting historical instances where Congress failed to address this issue, Nishikant Dubey from the BJP creates a sense of continuity between past failures and present-day problems, implying that Congress is incapable of handling national security concerns effectively.

Furthermore, there are hints of nationalist bias in the way India's international reputation is framed. The controversy over General Asim Munir's invitation to a military parade in the United States serves as an opportunity to assert India's superiority over Pakistan on an international stage. The US government's denial becomes irrelevant in this context, as it allows BJP officials to emphasize their own country's diplomatic prowess while criticizing Congress for allegedly embarrassing India.

In terms of linguistic bias, emotionally charged language plays a significant role in shaping public opinion. Words like "misinformation," "mouthpiece," and "embarrassing" create strong emotions in readers and sway their perception away from objective analysis towards partisan loyalty. Additionally, passive constructions like "Congress leader Jairam Ramesh asserted" obscure agency behind his statements while making him appear more culpable than necessary.

Selection bias becomes apparent when considering what facts or viewpoints are included or excluded from discussion. For instance, there is no mention whatsoever about any potential reasons why General Munir might have been invited or whether such invitations can be seen as routine diplomatic gestures rather than significant setbacks for India.

Structural bias emerges when examining how systems of authority or gatekeeping are implicitly defended or left uninterrogated within this narrative framework – specifically regarding institutions like governments themselves being seen as inherently trustworthy sources without critical scrutiny applied against them whenever they claim certain things happened under their watchful eyes versus those same institutions acting suspiciously whenever opposing parties bring up counter-evidence supporting alternative narratives presented elsewhere outside mainstream discourse circles dominated mainly by ruling elite voices speaking through channels controlled directly under influence exerted solely upon those holding power positions within respective spheres operating independently across different levels influencing broader societal contexts beyond immediate localities affected directly impacted differently depending various factors involved including media representation styles adopted during coverage processes affecting public perceptions formed gradually influenced cumulative effects resulting ultimately shaping overall worldview perspectives held collectively amongst general populace residing within given geographical boundaries encompassing diverse populations living together sharing common experiences shaped significantly influenced heavily impacted greatly varied degrees ranging widely across spectrum reflecting complex interplay multifaceted dynamics existing simultaneously intertwined deeply embedded intricately woven fabric human societies comprising multitude individuals interacting constantly exchanging ideas influencing one another reciprocally contributing shape evolution ongoing processes unfolding continuously forever changing dynamic nature human existence itself