Two Kashmiri students were injured in an attack near the boys' dormitory at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The Jammu and Kashmir Students Association reported that the students are currently stable and have been relocated to Ramsar for safety. The association has urged the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and the embassy in Tehran to ensure the safe relocation of all Indian students, particularly those from Kashmir, amid rising tensions.

Local leaders expressed their concerns over the incident. Srinagar MP Aga Syed Rugullah Mehdi stated that an Israeli strike had hit the dormitory, injuring some students. He has reached out to External Affairs Minister Dr. S Jaishankar, requesting immediate relocation or evacuation for these students when possible.

Sajad Lone, a local MLA, emphasized the need for government action to secure safe passage for stranded citizens. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah also communicated with Dr. Jaishankar regarding student safety, receiving assurances that necessary steps would be taken.

In response to India's request for safe passage for approximately 10,000 Indian students in Iran due to ongoing Israeli airstrikes on Iranian cities, Iranian authorities indicated that while airspace is closed, exits could be facilitated via land borders into Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan. The Indian government is reportedly considering an evacuation operation for its citizens in Iran.

Original article

The provided text is replete with various forms of bias, manipulation, and selective framing that subtly shape the narrative to favor a particular perspective. One of the most striking aspects of this text is its cultural and ideological bias, which leans heavily towards a nationalist and pro-Indian stance. The use of phrases such as "Kashmiri students" and "Jammu and Kashmir Students Association" creates an implicit association between the students' identity and their nationality, reinforcing a sense of shared experience and solidarity. This framing assumes that the readers are already invested in the idea of India as a nation-state with legitimate interests in protecting its citizens abroad.

Furthermore, the text presents an Israeli strike on Iranian cities as a given fact, without providing any context or nuance to this event. This omission allows the reader to infer that Israel's actions are inherently aggressive and unjustified, reinforcing an anti-Israeli bias. The use of words like "strike" implies a deliberate attack on innocent civilians, whereas alternative framing could have presented it as a military operation aimed at countering Iranian aggression. By presenting this event in isolation from its broader geopolitical context, the text creates an emotional appeal for Indian government action without acknowledging potential complexities.

The language used also reveals economic bias in favor of wealthier nations or corporations. The mention of 10,000 Indian students in Iran implies that their presence is significant enough to warrant evacuation operations at great expense to India's economy. This framing assumes that these students are valuable assets whose safety is paramount over other considerations such as economic costs or diplomatic relations with Iran. In contrast, if these students were from poorer countries or less influential nations, their situation might be framed differently.

Moreover, linguistic and semantic bias are evident throughout the text. Words like "attack," "injured," and "stranded" create an emotionally charged narrative that emphasizes danger and vulnerability. These words obscure agency by implying that external forces (Israel) have acted unilaterally against innocent civilians (Indian students), rather than presenting alternative perspectives on causality or responsibility.

Structural bias also manifests through selective inclusion or exclusion of information to direct the narrative towards a preferred interpretation. For instance, while local leaders express concerns over student safety, no counterarguments from Iranian authorities or opposing viewpoints are presented to challenge these concerns or provide alternative explanations for events unfolding in Iran.

Furthermore, confirmation bias becomes apparent when assumptions about Israel's actions go unchallenged throughout the article without acknowledging potential counter-narratives or evidence contradicting these claims.

In terms of selection and omission bias , sources cited appear predominantly aligned with Indian government perspectives , reinforcing nationalistic narratives . No sources critical of India's stance on Israel-Iran relations appear cited within this article .

Temporal bias also emerges through historical erasure ; there is no contextualization regarding previous instances where similar incidents may have occurred between India , Israel , Iran .