B.K. Hariprasad, a senior Congress leader and Member of the Legislative Council, called on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to publicly release the findings of the 2015 caste census and to expedite a new enumeration of castes in Karnataka. Speaking at Karnataka Bhavan in New Delhi, he emphasized that it is the government's duty to disclose the results of the 2015 Socio-Economic and Educational Survey, which has yet to be officially made public despite being presented to the State Cabinet.

Hariprasad noted that following directives from Congress leadership, the Karnataka government plans to conduct a fresh caste survey. He pointed out that while backward classes departments in various states can carry out caste censuses, it is ultimately up to the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India to manage census operations related to births and deaths—not specifically for assessing socio-economic conditions among different castes. Additionally, he mentioned that a notification had been issued by the Central government for India's 16th census, which will include caste enumeration set for 2027—16 years after the last such exercise in 2011.

Original article

The provided text is a news article that appears to be neutral in its tone and language, but upon closer examination, several biases and manipulations become apparent. One of the most striking biases is the cultural and ideological bias rooted in nationalism. The article mentions the Karnataka government's plans to conduct a fresh caste survey, which is presented as a positive development. However, this framing assumes that the Indian state has a legitimate interest in categorizing its citizens by caste, reinforcing the idea that caste is a natural or necessary aspect of Indian society. This bias favors a nationalist perspective that prioritizes state interests over individual rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, the article exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. The phrase "expedite a new enumeration of castes" creates a sense of urgency and importance around the issue, implying that it is critical for social justice or equality. This framing obscures other possible motivations for conducting such surveys, such as bureaucratic or administrative convenience. Additionally, the use of euphemisms like "backward classes departments" instead of more direct terms like "lower-caste communities" reinforces this emotional charge.

The text also displays structural and institutional bias by assuming that the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India has sole authority over census operations related to births and deaths. This assumption ignores alternative perspectives on data collection and management, such as those held by civil society organizations or community groups who may have different priorities or approaches to data gathering.

A notable instance of selection and omission bias can be seen in the way certain facts are presented while others are left out. For example, there is no mention of potential challenges or criticisms surrounding caste-based surveys in India, such as concerns about data accuracy or privacy issues for marginalized communities. By omitting these perspectives, the article creates an incomplete picture that reinforces its own narrative about social justice.

Moreover, confirmation bias becomes evident when Hariprasad notes that following directives from Congress leadership will lead to a fresh caste survey without questioning whether this approach might not address underlying issues effectively. This statement assumes without evidence that Congress's approach will be beneficial for marginalized communities.

Framing and narrative bias are also present throughout the text. The story structure emphasizes Hariprasad's call for public release of findings from 2015 Socio-Economic Educational Survey as if it were an isolated incident rather than part of broader systemic issues with data collection in India.

Regarding sources cited (none explicitly mentioned), one could argue they likely lean towards left-leaning perspectives given Hariprasad's affiliation with Congress party which generally leans left-wing politics within Indian context; however without explicit citations it remains speculative analysis based solely on contextual information provided within passage itself.



Lastly temporal bias manifests itself through lack historical context regarding how similar surveys were conducted before 2011 census; absence any discussion around why there was gap between last census conducted before 2011 makes reader assume everything started anew post-2011 without acknowledging any historical continuity between previous censuses conducted prior