Declaring VPNs as un-Islamic, Pakistan’s authorities justify their proposed ban to curb militancy, but critics fear increasing online censorship.
 |
| Pakistan's clerics and government seek to ban VPNs, citing security and religious reasons, raising concerns over freedom of expression and digital rights. Symbolic image |
Islamabad, Pakistan - November 18, 2024:
The recent statement by Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), declaring the use of VPNs as un-Islamic, highlights the intersection of religious doctrine, state security, and individual freedoms in the country. This development comes as the Ministry of Interior seeks to ban VPN services under the pretext of curbing militancy and controlling access to blasphemous or controversial content. While the government argues the move is necessary to maintain law and order, critics see it as a troubling crackdown on freedom of expression.
Raghib Naeemi, chairman of the CII, justified the stance by citing Shariah principles that empower governments to prevent actions leading to moral corruption or instability. This religious framing, however, raises questions about the role of clerical bodies in shaping policies that affect digital freedoms. Critics argue that labeling VPN use as “un-Islamic” oversimplifies its purpose, as millions use VPNs not to propagate illicit content but to circumvent censorship and ensure privacy.
The timing of the edict is significant. Since the government blocked X (formerly Twitter) in February 2023, VPNs have been a lifeline for citizens seeking access to restricted information. The statement risks alienating segments of the population that rely on such tools for legitimate communication and activism, particularly at a time when political and civil rights are under scrutiny.
The government has linked VPN use to insurgent activities, citing incidents like the Baloch Liberation Army’s (BLA) recent attack in Balochistan as justification for tighter internet controls. While it is true that militant groups exploit digital platforms for propaganda, banning VPNs is unlikely to address the root causes of militancy. Instead, it risks sweeping restrictions on millions of ordinary users, including political activists and journalists.
The government’s simultaneous push for mandatory VPN registration signals an effort to increase surveillance rather than merely counter terrorism. Critics argue this could lead to the persecution of dissenting voices, as Pakistan’s political climate grows increasingly polarized. Supporters of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, for example, have used VPNs to organize protests and share information, activities that could now face greater suppression.
Pakistan’s proposed ban fits into a broader global trend where authoritarian regimes use security and morality as justifications for restricting internet freedoms. Countries like China and Iran have implemented strict controls on VPN usage to maintain tight control over online narratives. If Pakistan follows a similar trajectory, it risks isolating itself further in an era where digital connectivity is vital for economic and social progress.
Moreover, the proposed measures raise concerns over transparency and accountability. Decisions to censor content or ban services are often made without public consultation, sidelining the voices of those most affected by such policies. While Naeemi’s declaration may resonate with conservative sections of society, it risks alienating tech-savvy youth and professionals who rely on unrestricted internet access for their livelihoods.
The debate over VPNs in Pakistan encapsulates a larger struggle between state control, religious influence, and individual freedoms. While concerns about security and blasphemy are valid in a volatile environment, blanket bans and moral edicts risk eroding trust in government institutions and alienating citizens. Policymakers must balance security concerns with the fundamental right to free expression, ensuring that measures do not stifle innovation or dissent. Without this balance, the ban on VPNs could deepen the divides in an already fragmented society.