President Droupadi Murmu recently expressed her views on the terminology used for animals, stating that the word 'pashu' is inappropriate. Instead, she referred to animals as 'jeevan dhan,' meaning wealth of life. During her speech at the 11th convocation ceremony of the Indian Veterinary Research Institute in Bareilly, she emphasized the crucial role animals play in human life and agriculture.

Murmu highlighted that animals have historically been essential for farmers, serving as transportation and labor. She noted that Indian culture recognizes a divine presence in all creatures, reinforcing their significance in society. The president also underscored the importance of vaccinating animals to prevent diseases.

Upon her arrival in Bareilly, Murmu was welcomed by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Governor Anandiben Patel. The event marked a significant moment for discussions around animal welfare and cultural values regarding livestock in India.

Original article

This article doesn’t give you anything you can actually *do* right now, so it’s not actionable. It talks about President Murmu’s speech on calling animals "jeevan dhan" instead of "pashu," but it doesn’t tell you how to use this idea in your life or suggest steps you can take. It also doesn’t teach you much new or deep, so it lacks educational depth. While it mentions animals’ importance in farming and culture, it doesn’t explain how these systems work or why the term change matters beyond surface-level ideas. For personal relevance, unless you’re a farmer or work with animals, this might not directly affect your daily life, though it could indirectly relate to agriculture or cultural values. There’s no emotional manipulation here—the article sticks to facts without drama or fear-mongering. It doesn’t serve a public service either, as it doesn’t provide resources, contacts, or tools you can use. Since it doesn’t offer advice, there’s nothing to judge for practicality. For long-term impact, it might encourage kinder thinking about animals, but it doesn’t push for specific actions or policies that could create lasting change. Finally, it has a small constructive emotional impact by promoting respect for animals, but it doesn’t empower you to act on this feeling. Overall, the article is more about sharing a leader’s opinion than giving you something useful to learn, do, or feel differently about in a meaningful way.

The shift in terminology from 'pashu' to 'jeevan dhan' for animals, while seemingly a matter of language, carries implications for local stewardship and familial responsibility. By framing animals as "wealth of life," there is an increased emphasis on their value, which can bolster the traditional role of animals in supporting agricultural families. This perspective aligns with the ancestral duty to care for resources that sustain kin, reinforcing the understanding that livestock are vital for the survival and well-being of the community.

The recognition of animals as essential for transportation and labor directly supports the practical duties of fathers and extended kin in providing for their families and managing the land. This reinforces the intergenerational transfer of knowledge and skills related to animal husbandry, strengthening the bonds of responsibility within the family unit. The cultural acknowledgment of a divine presence in all creatures can foster a deeper respect for the land and its inhabitants, encouraging a more diligent and caring approach to resource management, which is crucial for the long-term survival of the community and the continuity of life.

However, the emphasis on vaccination, while a practical measure for disease prevention, can also signal a reliance on external or centralized directives for the health of the community's resources. If this leads to a diminished sense of personal or local accountability for animal care, it could weaken the direct responsibility that families and clans have historically held for the health of their livestock. This could subtly shift the locus of care away from the immediate family and community, potentially eroding the self-reliance that is fundamental to survival.

The real consequences if this reframing leads to a detachment from direct, local responsibility for animal care, or if it encourages a passive reliance on distant directives, would be a weakening of the practical skills and duties that have sustained families for generations. This could diminish the intergenerational transfer of knowledge, reduce the direct responsibility of kin for their resources, and ultimately weaken the resilience of families and local communities in their stewardship of the land and their ability to provide for future generations.

The text exhibits cultural and ideological bias by framing President Murmu's remarks within a specific cultural and spiritual context that elevates the status of animals in Indian society. This is evident when the text states, "Indian culture recognizes a divine presence in all creatures, reinforcing their significance in society." By highlighting this cultural perspective, the narrative implicitly contrasts it with other cultures that may not hold similar views, positioning Indian values as more enlightened or respectful toward animals. This framing favors a nationalist perspective, emphasizing the uniqueness and superiority of Indian cultural beliefs.

Linguistic and semantic bias is present in the text's use of the term "jeevan dhan" (wealth of life) as a replacement for "pashu" (animal). The phrase "wealth of life" carries a positive, almost reverential connotation, which serves to elevate the status of animals in a way that aligns with President Murmu's message. This choice of language is not neutral; it is designed to evoke an emotional response and reinforce the idea that animals are not just resources but beings of intrinsic value. The bias here favors a perspective that seeks to shift societal attitudes toward animals, potentially marginalizing those who view animals primarily as tools for labor or agriculture.

The text also demonstrates selection and omission bias by focusing exclusively on President Murmu's positive remarks about animals and their role in society, while omitting any potential counterarguments or criticisms. For example, there is no mention of debates around animal rights, the ethics of using animals for labor, or the economic implications of prioritizing animal welfare. By excluding these perspectives, the narrative presents a one-sided view that aligns with the president's stance, reinforcing her message without challenge. This bias favors the president's viewpoint and suppresses alternative interpretations or critiques.

Structural and institutional bias is evident in the way the text highlights the presence of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Governor Anandiben Patel during President Murmu's arrival. The phrase "Upon her arrival in Bareilly, Murmu was welcomed by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Governor Anandiben Patel" serves to legitimize the event by associating it with high-ranking officials. This framing reinforces the authority and importance of the president's message, positioning it as a significant moment endorsed by key political figures. The bias here favors the institutional power structure and presents the event as a unified, authoritative statement rather than a potentially contested or debated issue.

Confirmation bias is present in the text's acceptance of President Murmu's assertion that animals have historically been essential for farmers without providing evidence or context. The statement "Murmu highlighted that animals have historically been essential for farmers, serving as transportation and labor" is presented as fact, even though the historical and cultural contexts of animal use in agriculture are complex and varied. By not questioning or expanding on this claim, the text reinforces the president's narrative without critical examination, favoring her perspective over a more nuanced understanding of the issue.

Framing and narrative bias is evident in the sequence of information, which builds a story around President Murmu's speech as a pivotal moment for animal welfare and cultural values. The text begins by introducing her remarks, then elaborates on her points, and concludes by noting the significance of the event. This structure creates a narrative arc that positions the president's speech as a landmark moment, shaping the reader's perception of its importance. The bias here favors a narrative that elevates the president's message and its cultural implications, potentially overshadowing other equally important discussions or events.

Finally, the text exhibits a subtle form of virtue signaling in its emphasis on President Murmu's progressive language and her call for vaccinating animals. The phrase "The president also underscored the importance of vaccinating animals to prevent diseases" presents her as a compassionate and forward-thinking leader. This framing aligns with contemporary values of animal welfare and public health, positioning the president as a champion of these causes. The bias here favors a positive portrayal of the president, potentially at the expense of a more balanced or critical assessment of her remarks or policies.

The text conveys a sense of respect and appreciation for animals, which is evident in President Murmu's choice of words and her emphasis on their importance. By suggesting the term 'jeevan dhan' instead of 'pashu,' she shows a deep reverence for life, elevating the status of animals from mere resources to valuable beings. This shift in terminology is a powerful way to change perceptions and foster a more compassionate attitude. The strength of this emotion lies in its ability to challenge traditional views and encourage a more respectful relationship between humans and animals.

Pride is another emotion that surfaces when Murmu highlights the historical and cultural significance of animals in India. She mentions their role in agriculture and transportation, and the belief in a divine presence within creatures, which instills a sense of national pride and cultural identity. This emotion is used to connect with readers who value tradition and heritage, making them more receptive to the idea of animal welfare as an integral part of Indian culture.

The text also carries a subtle tone of concern when discussing animal health. Murmu's emphasis on vaccination suggests a worry about potential diseases and their impact on both animals and humans. This emotion is strategically placed to prompt readers to consider the practical implications of neglecting animal welfare, thus encouraging a sense of responsibility.

These emotions are carefully woven into the narrative to guide readers towards a more compassionate and responsible outlook. By appealing to respect, pride, and concern, the writer aims to inspire action and change opinions. The use of emotional language, such as 'wealth of life' and 'divine presence,' adds a persuasive layer, making the message more memorable and impactful.

The emotional structure of the text is designed to shape opinions by presenting animal welfare as a matter of cultural pride and moral responsibility. However, it's important for readers to recognize that emotions can sometimes cloud judgment. By identifying these emotional cues, readers can differentiate between the factual information (e.g., the role of animals in agriculture) and the feelings evoked (e.g., pride and concern). This awareness allows readers to form well-rounded opinions, ensuring that emotions enhance, rather than overshadow, their understanding of the topic.