President Droupadi Murmu emphasized the spiritual connection between humans and animals during her address at the Indian Veterinary Research Institute's convocation in Bareilly. She highlighted that Indian culture perceives a divine presence in all living beings, reflecting the belief that everything in the universe is enveloped by God. Murmu expressed her disapproval of referring to animals as "pasu," suggesting instead that they be considered "jeevan dhan," or life's wealth, underscoring their importance to farmers and society.

She noted that the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the detrimental effects of a consumption-driven culture on both humans and animals, urging for greater awareness of animal welfare. The President called for grassroots initiatives like animal health fairs to promote better care for animals and stressed the importance of conserving animal species for biodiversity.

Murmu also acknowledged the growing participation of women in veterinary sciences as a positive trend and encouraged graduates to dedicate themselves to caring for voiceless creatures. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath praised researchers at IVRI for their contributions, particularly during challenges like RT-PCR testing during the pandemic, highlighting their role in saving both livestock and human lives. At this event, Murmu awarded degrees to 576 graduates and presented 24 medals.

Original article

This article doesn’t provide actionable information for the average reader, as it offers no specific steps, behaviors, or resources they can use directly. While it mentions initiatives like animal health fairs, it doesn’t explain how someone could participate or start one. It lacks educational depth because it repeats broad cultural beliefs (e.g., animals as "life's wealth") without explaining their historical roots, scientific basis, or practical implications. The content has limited personal relevance unless the reader is directly involved in veterinary sciences, farming, or animal welfare; for most, it’s informational but not life-impacting. There’s no emotional manipulation or sensationalism, as the language is factual and devoid of fear-driven framing. It serves minimal public service utility, as it doesn't provide official resources, contacts, or tools, only rehashing public statements without adding context. The recommendations (e.g., promoting animal welfare) lack practicality for the average reader, as they are vague and not tailored to individual action. While it encourages long-term impact through biodiversity conservation, it doesn’t outline how an individual can contribute sustainably. Finally, it has a neutral constructive emotional impact, fostering mild awareness but not empowerment or critical thinking. Overall, the article is more ceremonial than practical, offering little of tangible value to the average reader beyond awareness of a speech’s content.

The emphasis on a spiritual connection between humans and animals, and the reframing of animals as "life's wealth" rather than mere "pasu," can foster a deeper sense of responsibility towards the natural world. This perspective, when embraced at the local level, encourages the careful stewardship of land and resources, which are vital for the survival of families and communities. By recognizing the intrinsic value of animals, particularly those that support agricultural livelihoods, communities are more likely to ensure their health and well-being, thereby securing a more stable food supply for all, including children and elders.

The call for grassroots initiatives like animal health fairs promotes local engagement and shared responsibility for the care of animals. Such activities can strengthen community bonds by bringing people together for a common purpose, fostering trust and mutual reliance. The recognition of women's increasing participation in veterinary sciences is a positive development, as it broadens the pool of individuals dedicated to the care of living beings, including those essential for community sustenance.

However, the focus on animal welfare, while beneficial for resource management, does not directly address the core duties of kinship, such as the protection of children and elders, or the procreative continuity of families. While a healthy environment supports life, the strength of families and clans ultimately rests on the direct care and responsibility each member has for one another. The text does not provide insight into how these broader societal values translate into the intimate, daily duties that bind families together, nor does it address potential shifts in responsibility away from the immediate family unit.

The real consequences if these ideas of enhanced animal welfare and respect for life spread unchecked, without a corresponding strengthening of direct kinship duties, could be a community that is more attuned to the well-being of its environment but potentially less focused on the immediate, personal responsibilities within families. This could lead to a weakening of the direct bonds between parents and children, and a diminished sense of duty towards elders, as the focus of care might be diffused onto a broader, less personal concept of "life's wealth." The continuity of the people and the land's stewardship depend on the active, daily commitment of kin to each other, particularly the nurturing of the next generation.

The text exhibits cultural and ideological bias by framing Indian culture and spirituality as inherently harmonious with nature and animal welfare. This is evident in the statement, "Indian culture perceives a divine presence in all living beings, reflecting the belief that everything in the universe is enveloped by God." While this portrays Indian culture positively, it risks oversimplifying complex cultural beliefs and practices. By emphasizing this spiritual connection without acknowledging potential contradictions or alternative perspectives within Indian society, the text presents a one-sided view that aligns with a specific ideological narrative. This framing favors a nationalist perspective that promotes Indian cultural superiority in its treatment of animals, potentially marginalizing other cultures or viewpoints that do not align with this idealized portrayal.

Linguistic and semantic bias is present in the text's use of emotionally charged language to elevate certain ideas while dismissing others. For instance, President Murmu expresses disapproval of referring to animals as "pasu," suggesting instead that they be called "jeevan dhan," or life's wealth. The phrase "life's wealth" carries a positive connotation, framing animals as valuable assets to society. This rhetorical choice manipulates the reader into viewing the proposed terminology as inherently better, without critically examining the implications of either term. Additionally, the text uses the phrase "voiceless creatures" to describe animals, which evokes empathy and reinforces the idea that humans have a moral obligation to care for them. This language is designed to sway the reader emotionally rather than presenting a balanced argument.

The text also demonstrates selection and omission bias by highlighting specific aspects of the event while excluding others. For example, it focuses on President Murmu's emphasis on animal welfare and the role of women in veterinary sciences, as well as Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's praise for researchers. However, it omits any mention of potential criticisms, counterarguments, or challenges related to animal welfare in India. By selectively including only positive narratives, the text creates an incomplete picture that favors the perspectives of the authorities mentioned. This bias suppresses alternative viewpoints, such as those of farmers, animal rights activists, or critics of government policies, which could provide a more nuanced understanding of the issue.

Sex-based bias is subtly embedded in the text's discussion of women's participation in veterinary sciences. The statement, "Murmu also acknowledged the growing participation of women in veterinary sciences as a positive trend," frames women's involvement as noteworthy primarily because it is increasing, rather than focusing on their contributions or challenges. This implies that women's presence in the field is significant mainly due to its growth, potentially reinforcing the notion that their participation is exceptional rather than normal. While the text intends to highlight progress, it inadvertently perpetuates a narrative that treats women's involvement as a novelty, rather than an expected and integral part of the profession.

Confirmation bias is evident in the text's acceptance of President Murmu's assertions without questioning their underlying assumptions. For example, the claim that the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the detrimental effects of a consumption-driven culture on both humans and animals is presented as fact, without evidence or exploration of alternative explanations. Similarly, the text uncritically accepts the idea that grassroots initiatives like animal health fairs will promote better care for animals, without examining potential limitations or counterarguments. This bias favors the narrative presented by the authorities, reinforcing their perspective without subjecting it to scrutiny or presenting opposing views.

Framing and narrative bias shape the sequence and structure of the text to guide the reader's interpretation. The story begins with President Murmu's spiritual and cultural remarks, setting a tone that aligns with a specific ideological perspective. Subsequent paragraphs build on this foundation, emphasizing positive developments such as women's participation in veterinary sciences and the contributions of researchers. By structuring the narrative in this way, the text leads the reader toward a conclusion that reinforces the importance of animal welfare and the role of Indian culture and institutions in promoting it. This sequencing suppresses alternative narratives or criticisms that could challenge the text's central message.

Institutional bias is present in the text's uncritical portrayal of authority figures and institutions. President Murmu and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath are depicted as champions of animal welfare and scientific progress, with no mention of potential shortcomings or controversies associated with their leadership. For instance, the text highlights Murmu's awarding of degrees and medals without questioning the broader impact of the Indian Veterinary Research Institute's policies or practices. This bias favors the authority of these institutions and individuals, presenting them as unequivocally positive forces without acknowledging complexities or criticisms that might exist.

Finally, the text exhibits a form of linguistic bias through its use of passive voice to obscure agency in certain instances. For example, the phrase "the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the detrimental effects of a consumption-driven culture" avoids identifying who or what is responsible for the consumption-driven culture. By using passive voice, the text shifts focus away from potential culprits, such as corporations, governments, or individuals, and instead attributes blame to an abstract concept. This rhetorical technique masks accountability and favors a narrative that emphasizes the pandemic's role in exposing issues, rather than addressing the root causes of the problem.

The text conveys several meaningful emotions, each serving a specific purpose in shaping the reader's reaction. Respect and reverence are evident when President Murmu emphasizes the spiritual connection between humans and animals, describing them as "life's wealth" instead of "pasu." This choice of words reflects a deep admiration for animals and Indian cultural values, aiming to shift the reader's perspective toward greater respect for all living beings. The strength of this emotion is moderate, as it is expressed through thoughtful language rather than dramatic statements, but it effectively builds trust in Murmu's message by aligning it with cultural and spiritual beliefs. Concern is another emotion present when Murmu discusses the negative impacts of a consumption-driven culture on humans and animals during the COVID-19 pandemic. This concern is mild but purposeful, encouraging readers to reflect on their actions and consider the broader consequences of their lifestyle choices. It subtly inspires action by highlighting the need for greater awareness of animal welfare.

Pride is prominently displayed when Murmu acknowledges the growing participation of women in veterinary sciences and when Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath praises IVRI researchers for their contributions during the pandemic. This emotion is strong and serves to uplift and motivate both the graduates and the readers, fostering a sense of accomplishment and encouragement. It also reinforces the credibility of the institutions and individuals being praised, making the message more persuasive. Urgency is conveyed through Murmu's call for grassroots initiatives like animal health fairs and the conservation of animal species. This emotion is moderate in intensity but effectively prompts readers to take action by emphasizing the immediate need for better animal care and biodiversity preservation.

The writer uses emotional language strategically to persuade the audience. For example, referring to animals as "life's wealth" instead of "pasu" is a powerful metaphor that elevates their status and appeals to the reader's empathy. Repeating the idea of the divine presence in all living beings reinforces the spiritual connection, making it a central theme that resonates emotionally. The comparison of animals to voiceless creatures needing care evokes sympathy and encourages readers to act compassionately. These tools increase the emotional impact by making abstract concepts relatable and personally meaningful.

The emotional structure of the text shapes opinions by appealing to cultural, spiritual, and ethical values, guiding readers toward a more compassionate view of animals and their role in society. However, this approach can also limit clear thinking by blending facts with feelings, such as when the pandemic's effects are linked to consumption culture without detailed evidence. Recognizing where emotions are used helps readers distinguish between factual information and persuasive appeals, allowing them to form balanced opinions rather than being swayed solely by emotional arguments. This awareness empowers readers to critically evaluate the message and make informed decisions.