The recent intervention by National Conference lawmaker Tanvir Sadiq in the Jammu Assembly, calling for a pension scheme for accredited journalists in Jammu and Kashmir, deserves appreciation. Recognising the role of journalists and advocating financial security for them after retirement is undoubtedly a positive and progressive step. Journalism, especially in Jammu and Kashmir, has never been an easy profession. Those who have devoted decades to reporting under challenging circumstances deserve dignity and security in their later years.
On this count, the legislator’s statement reflects sensitivity toward the media fraternity and must be welcomed.
However, the speech also exposed a troubling gap.
While speaking about welfare for accredited journalists, the larger and uncomfortable reality seems to have been overlooked. After 2019, a significant number of senior and experienced journalists who had long been on the accredited list were removed. Many of them had decades of professional reporting experience and were recognised faces in the media landscape of Jammu and Kashmir. Their accreditation was withdrawn without transparent reasoning, leaving them professionally marginalised.
At the same time, accreditation cards were reportedly issued to individuals with minimal field experience, including social media handlers and relatively inexperienced entrants. This raises a fundamental question: who defines “accredited journalist” today, and on what basis?
If the conversation is about pension for accredited journalists, then it must also be about restoring fairness in accreditation itself. Welfare cannot be selective. A pension policy built on an accreditation framework that many consider flawed risks compounding injustice rather than correcting it.
The Information Department, which functions under Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, had earlier indicated that grievances related to accreditation would be reviewed. There were assurances that those deprived unfairly would see rectification. Yet, visible corrective action remains elusive.
Before legislating welfare schemes, there must be clarity on eligibility. Before announcing pensions, there must be institutional fairness. Before promising dignity after retirement, there must be dignity during active professional life.
The lawmaker would strengthen his position by expanding the debate beyond pensions and raising critical questions:
-
Why were seasoned journalists removed from accreditation rolls?
-
On what objective criteria were new accreditations granted?
-
Has there been an independent review of post-2019 accreditation decisions?
-
Will those unjustly deprived be reinstated?
Talking about welfare is commendable. But welfare for whom?
If the Assembly is serious about protecting journalists, it must begin with transparency, accountability, and rectification of past exclusions. Only then can any pension scheme carry moral legitimacy.
True reform requires not just benevolent announcements, but institutional courage.
