Census in city needs structural corrections

Poor planning and neglect of enumerators must not be allowed to impact the reliability of critical data

The delays and disarray surrounding the national Census work in Bengaluru are not merely an administrative hiccup – they reflect a deeper failure of planning and respect for frontline data workers. At the heart of the disruption lies a basic grievance: enumerators have not been fully paid for the state’s Socio-Educational Survey, completed in October 2025.

Added to this is the decision to split payment between two enumerators working in the same block, effectively halving individual earnings. Expecting the same workforce to shoulder fresh Census responsibilities without settling past dues is not just impractical; it is unfair.

There are also complaints of arbitrary allocation of work, with enumerators assigned distant blocks, increasing travel time and out-of-pocket expenses. While the authorities claim this was meant to correct earlier imbalances, it has bred resentment and inefficiency.

The timing of the exercise reflects poor judgment by the Centre. Conducting door-to-door surveys during peak summer places avoidable physical strain on enumerators. Worse, it clashes with crucial academic responsibilities like examinations and evaluations, leading to absenteeism among teachers who form the backbone of the enumeration.

The GBA’s move to recruit stopgap enumerators underscores the scale of the problem. Equally concerning is the digital divide among the enumerators. The Census process is now fully digital, but several enumerators are struggling because their phones do not support the survey application. This is compounded by the poor response to self-enumeration.

With fewer than 40,000 households in Bengaluru opting for the digital route, the intended easing of workload has not materialised. There is also little evidence of coordination between the state’s socio-economic survey and the national Census. Both seek overlapping datasets, yet have been conducted in silos, duplicating effort and burdening enumerators. A more integrated approach will help improve data quality while reducing fatigue.

The GBA must immediately settle pending payments, rationalise block allocation to minimise travel, and provide enumerators with compatible devices or technical support. Survey timelines must align with climatic and academic realities, and greater effort is needed to improve public participation in self-enumeration. Above all, there is a need for better coordination between the Centre and the states because the stakes extend far beyond logistics.

Reliable data is essential not only for population counts but also for welfare design and equitable distribution of resources. The Supreme Court, in the Indra Sawhney case, had emphasised the need for robust empirical data to justify affirmative action, including reservations. Treating it casually will only produce unreliable outcomes and a policy built on shaky ground.