Unheard Bold Voices: Devadasi Community Petitions Government Over Gaps in Statewide Socio-Economic Survey – 2025

Members of the Devadasi community across several districts of Karnataka have submitted petitions to the state government, alleging serious discrepancies in the ongoing socio-economic and educational survey. The community claims that key data related to livelihood, housing, and welfare status were either inaccurately recorded or entirely overlooked during enumeration. The petitions, submitted through local welfare associations, demand immediate corrective measures and inclusion of community representatives in verification processes. Activists argue that inaccurate data could further marginalize Devadasi women, who already face social stigma, economic hardship, and limited access to welfare benefits.

According to community leaders, several households were not visited by enumerators, while others reported incomplete data entries that failed to capture their actual conditions. The lack of sensitivity training for enumerators was cited as a major factor, with respondents alleging discomfort and hesitation during data collection. They claim that such oversights distort the true socio-economic picture, ultimately affecting access to government rehabilitation programs. Organizations working for Devadasi welfare have urged the Social Welfare Department to conduct re-verification drives in affected districts and ensure greater accountability among field staff. The letters emphasized that data accuracy is not merely a bureaucratic exercise but a crucial determinant of justice and dignity.

Government officials have acknowledged receipt of the petitions and assured that corrective mechanisms will be considered. Preliminary discussions are underway to review the enumeration framework and possibly engage NGOs for third-party verification. Officials assert that the survey’s objective is to identify gaps and design targeted interventions, not to exclude vulnerable groups. However, the controversy has reignited long-standing debates about the effectiveness of data-driven policymaking for marginalized communities. The government’s next steps could determine whether the Devadasi community’s concerns are addressed meaningfully or lost in procedural inertia.

The petitions submitted by the Devadasi community highlight a deep-rooted concern regarding how marginalized groups are often represented in official records. Many community members feel that the current survey process, though well-intentioned, lacks the sensitivity required to understand their social and economic complexities. They argue that the data collected fails to portray the struggles of Devadasi women who continue to live without stable income, proper housing, or healthcare support. By submitting letters directly to the government, they hope to reclaim agency in decisions that directly affect their lives and future welfare programs.

The issue has ignited widespread discussions among social activists and researchers, who view the community’s outcry as a reflection of systemic lapses in data collection. Experts point out that surveys meant to identify and rehabilitate marginalized groups often fall short when conducted without community consultation. The absence of trained enumerators familiar with the Devadasi system leads to underreporting and misclassification. Consequently, the community remains invisible in statistics, which directly translates to fewer resources and inadequate policy responses.

In several districts like Belagavi, Ballari, and Bagalkot, Devadasi women have expressed disappointment over how their socio-economic realities were simplified or ignored. Many said that enumerators visited their neighborhoods briefly and filled forms without meaningful dialogue. Some households were marked as “unavailable,” while others were misclassified under general categories, erasing the distinct challenges faced by former and current Devadasis. Such lapses, they argue, not only distort data but also perpetuate systemic neglect.

Community leaders have emphasized that the survey must go beyond quantitative data to include qualitative aspects such as social exclusion, health issues, and educational barriers. They contend that unless these lived experiences are documented, rehabilitation policies will remain inadequate. Several women shared personal accounts of losing access to welfare schemes because their names or family details were incorrectly entered in government records, illustrating how errors in documentation can have life-altering consequences.

The controversy surrounding the survey has once again brought attention to Karnataka’s long-standing rehabilitation schemes for the Devadasi community. While the government has launched various programs for housing, pensions, and skill training, activists claim that bureaucratic inefficiencies and lack of monitoring have limited their reach. The current survey was intended to rectify these gaps by identifying eligible beneficiaries, but inaccurate enumeration threatens to undo years of advocacy and progress.

Social workers who have long been associated with the rehabilitation of Devadasi women say that the state must treat data collection as a participatory exercise rather than a mechanical procedure. They recommend appointing local volunteers familiar with the community’s background to serve as enumerators. This would not only ensure accuracy but also help build trust between officials and respondents. Trust, they argue, is crucial in communities where decades of marginalization have fostered skepticism toward official interventions.

Community Seeks Inclusion and Transparency

Representatives have demanded that Devadasi women be involved in future survey verification rounds to ensure accuracy. They insist on appointing independent observers from social welfare organizations to oversee enumeration in vulnerable zones.

Activists argue that participatory data collection would build trust and ensure that lived realities are accurately reflected in government records, shaping more inclusive welfare strategies.

Officials Promise Review and Redressal

The Social Welfare Department has promised to re-examine the reported discrepancies. Senior officers have been directed to hold consultations with local NGOs and community leaders to improve data collection protocols.

Authorities maintain that the state remains committed to ensuring equitable development and will take corrective steps to prevent exclusion or underreporting in ongoing welfare assessments.

District-level authorities have begun holding consultations with welfare organizations to discuss how the verification process can be made more inclusive. Preliminary proposals include re-surveying specific areas, allowing corrections in digital records, and conducting awareness drives to inform community members about their right to verification. Officials have indicated that grievance cells may be set up at the taluk level to receive complaints and track their resolution systematically.

Meanwhile, women’s rights groups have launched independent studies to compare field realities with official data. These studies aim to highlight inconsistencies and advocate for more transparent, gender-sensitive documentation practices. Several NGOs have pledged to collaborate with the government by providing field support and sharing verified information gathered through community engagement initiatives.

The petitions have also reignited public discourse about the need for caste- and gender-sensitive governance. Activists argue that marginalized groups such as the Devadasis often fall through policy cracks due to generalized categorization. They stress that social rehabilitation must be grounded in contextual understanding—acknowledging the cultural, historical, and economic factors that continue to define the community’s challenges in the present day.

Across Karnataka, the Devadasi system, though legally abolished, persists in pockets due to poverty, social pressure, and lack of awareness. Many young girls continue to face exploitation under the guise of tradition. Accurate surveys, community leaders insist, are essential to track these realities and prevent further exploitation. Without reliable data, the cycle of poverty and marginalization remains unbroken, allowing systemic inequalities to persist.

Senior sociologists have warned that faulty enumeration can have far-reaching policy consequences. They explain that welfare programs, including housing grants and pension schemes, depend heavily on survey data for funding allocation. If inaccuracies persist, thousands could be deprived of basic benefits for another cycle. They call for rigorous auditing mechanisms to verify and cross-check data before it is finalized and used for policy planning.

The government’s initial response, though cautious, signals a willingness to engage with the community. Officials from the Social Welfare Department have scheduled field visits to interact directly with affected families. These visits are expected to provide firsthand insights into the lapses that occurred during data collection. The administration has also directed district officers to ensure better coordination between enumerators, supervisors, and local NGOs during re-verification drives.

Members of the Devadasi community have welcomed the government’s openness but remain skeptical until tangible changes are seen on the ground. Many point out that previous assurances often faded without meaningful follow-up. They demand that the state set clear deadlines for corrective action and share progress reports publicly. Transparency, they argue, is the only way to rebuild faith among communities that have historically been excluded from decision-making.

Activists are also pressing for long-term structural reforms beyond the immediate corrections. They recommend institutionalizing periodic data audits, ensuring representation of marginalized communities in survey design, and training enumerators in ethical and culturally sensitive data collection. These steps, they believe, will prevent the repetition of current lapses and establish a more inclusive system of governance.

The issue has also drawn attention from the National Human Rights Commission, which has been monitoring the implementation of rehabilitation schemes for Devadasi women. The commission has reportedly sought updates from the Karnataka government regarding the accuracy of survey data and measures taken to address discrepancies. Its involvement is expected to lend additional accountability to the process and encourage timely resolution.

At the heart of this issue lies a larger question about how governance structures perceive and engage with marginalized identities. The Devadasi community’s petitions are not merely administrative complaints—they are assertions of dignity and demands for equitable participation. The government’s ability to respond effectively will determine whether the survey becomes a symbol of inclusion or yet another missed opportunity in the ongoing struggle for social justice in Karnataka.

As deliberations continue, the petitions serve as a reminder that data is not just about numbers but about people whose lives depend on accurate representation. Every unchecked error in a survey form can translate into a denied right, an unfulfilled promise, or a silenced voice. For the Devadasi women of Karnataka, this moment represents more than a bureaucratic correction—it is a fight for recognition, fairness, and the long-overdue acknowledgment of their rightful place in society.

The ongoing dispute underscores the fragile balance between bureaucratic processes and social justice. For the Devadasi community, accurate representation in official surveys is not just about numbers—it is about visibility, recognition, and rightful access to state welfare. Their letters to the government reflect decades of struggle for dignity and empowerment amid structural neglect. As the government reconsiders its approach, activists stress that inclusion must go beyond promises, integrating empathy and participation into every stage of policy execution to ensure that no community remains unheard in Karnataka’s developmental narrative.