Tensions escalated between workers of the CPI(M) and Congress in Kottayi, Kerala, following the defection of a Congress mandalam president to the CPI(M). The conflict arose when Mohan Kumar, who recently joined the CPI(M) along with 13 other Congress members, attempted to take control of the local Congress office. After their arrival, they replaced Congress symbols with CPI(M) flags.

Congress workers opposed this move, leading to a physical altercation. Police intervened and used force to disperse both groups, resulting in injuries among some participants. Mohan Kumar had secured an agreement with the building's owner shortly after leaving Congress, which included settling outstanding rent and establishing a new lease in his name. However, Congress members argued that the office had been operational for nearly a century and maintained that such spaces should remain under party control despite leadership changes.

The police ultimately closed the office and deferred further action to the Revenue Divisional Officer for resolution.

Original article

This text exemplifies a plethora of biases, each carefully crafted to shape the reader's perception of the events unfolding in Kottayi, Kerala. One of the most striking biases is the linguistic and semantic bias inherent in the language used to describe the conflict. The text employs emotionally charged words such as "tensions escalated," "defection," and "physical altercation" to create a sense of drama and urgency. This framing serves to emphasize the perceived wrongdoing of Mohan Kumar and his supporters, while downplaying any potential grievances they may have had against the Congress party.

Furthermore, the text exhibits structural and institutional bias by presenting a narrative that implicitly defends the authority of local party leaders. The mention of Mohan Kumar securing an agreement with the building's owner before leaving Congress suggests that he was acting within his rights as a leader. However, this is not explicitly stated in relation to his actions after joining CPI(M), which are portrayed as provocative and unjustified. This selective framing creates an impression that CPI(M) leaders are more entitled to control over party offices than their Congress counterparts.

The text also reveals cultural and ideological bias through its portrayal of party politics in Kerala. The description of CPI(M) members replacing Congress symbols with their own flags implies a sense of cultural superiority or dominance. This narrative reinforces a particular worldview where one ideology or party is seen as more legitimate or desirable than others. Additionally, this framing perpetuates a binary opposition between CPI(M) and Congress, ignoring potential nuances or complexities within each party.

A notable instance of selection and omission bias can be observed in how certain facts are presented while others are left out. For example, there is no mention of any potential reasons why 13 other Congress members defected to CPI(M), nor is there any exploration of possible disagreements within Congress that may have led to this split. By omitting these details, the text creates an impression that CPI(M) poached loyal members from Congress without provocation.

The use of passive constructions also obscures agency in certain parts of the narrative. When describing how police intervened to disperse both groups using force, it states "Police intervened." This phrasing shifts attention away from individual officers' actions toward an abstract entity called "police." Such passive constructions can make it harder for readers to discern who exactly was responsible for specific actions during this incident.

Moreover, economic class-based bias is subtly present through references to property ownership (the building's owner) and rent settlements (securing outstanding rent). These details highlight economic interests at play but do not delve into broader socioeconomic contexts or power dynamics between different classes within Kerala's society.

In terms of confirmation bias, one might argue that certain assumptions about political parties' behavior are taken for granted without question or evidence provided beyond what has transpired at Kottayi office level events described here – reinforcing pre-existing narratives rather than challenging them through diverse perspectives presented throughout article content.



Regarding sources cited (none explicitly mentioned), if we were considering external sources referenced elsewhere within same publication series potentially influencing overall tone & direction taken by piece – then further analysis could reveal whether those sources reinforce particular ideological slants favoring one side over another.



Lastly regarding temporal bias – presentism seems evident given focus solely on current situation without exploring historical context leading up until point where tensions escalated; historical erasure occurs when past incidents influencing current state remain unaddressed.



Technological/data-driven bias isn't directly applicable since no data claims were made; however if future updates included statistical analysis comparing membership numbers across parties before/after defections then such claims would need scrutiny regarding methodology used & assumptions underlying interpretation