In an extraordinary step, the government has advised the PTA to crack down on virtual private networks (VPNs), claiming they are used for immoral and illegal activities. Pakistan often frames such measures through the lens of religion, raising concerns about their underlying motives.
The timing of the decision raises critical questions. Is it genuinely about morality and legality, or is it part of a broader effort to suppress dissent? The use of religion to justify political or administrative actions is not new in Pakistan, but it often leads to unintended consequences, including public backlash and questions about the state’s priorities.
As a result of the order — which the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) claims can be enforced efficiently — a number of businesses and individuals have already registered their VPNs, as demanded. However, many others likely have not, and it remains unclear how these individuals will be detected and acted against.
VPNs became widespread in Pakistan after the government cracked down on X (formerly Twitter), reportedly due to contentious discussions on the platform. Their use has since been a topic of controversy. It is, however, difficult to comprehend how VPNs could be deemed un-Islamic.
This verdict aligns with historical decisions, such as the ban on televisions in Afghanistan or the prohibition of the printing press in Turkey decades ago. These measures, often devoid of logic, have limited success in curbing dissent.
At present, the government is locked in a clash with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Compounding the situation is the ongoing smog crisis in Lahore and other cities, which has forced schools to close and created further challenges for students required to work online.
Freelancers and remote workers, relying on VPNs for medical transcription, accounting, and other tasks, are also adversely affected. Many educational institutions, already grappling with infrastructure issues, now face an additional hurdle as online education becomes harder to manage.
The economic repercussions of this decision are far-reaching, especially for Pakistan’s burgeoning freelance community. At a time when unemployment is rising and economic pressures are mounting, this ban threatens the livelihoods of many.
The government needs to reconsider its stance on VPNs, especially given the difficulty of enforcing such a ruling in a country as chaotic as Pakistan.
This decision could also discourage foreign companies from outsourcing work to Pakistani freelancers, a segment that contributes significantly to the economy.
VPNs are often used not for nefarious purposes, but to ensure secure communication channels and access to global platforms. A blanket ban without nuanced policies risks alienating a productive workforce and tarnishing Pakistan’s reputation in the global digital market.
Meanwhile, the Punjab government has also targeted vehicles with high smoke emissions, requiring owners to install new equipment to combat pollution. Yet, reports from Bilal Ganj, a popular market for used vehicle parts, reveal how Pakistanis circumvent laws: many vehicle owners rent emission-reducing equipment, present it for inspection, and return it after obtaining approval. This highlights a deeper issue of governance and enforcement in Pakistan.
The ingenuity displayed in bypassing laws underscores the lack of trust between citizens and the state, where rules are often seen as obstacles rather than guidelines for collective well-being.
The government’s suggestion that VPNs foster immorality is also questionable. Offering constructive alternatives, such as engaging young people with positive content, would be a more effective approach.
For instance, investing in digital literacy programs, promoting ethical online behaviour, and fostering awareness about the responsible use of technology could yield better results than outright bans.
Moreover, in an environment where internet access is restricted during political rallies or speeches, VPN usage is bound to rise. People depend on the internet for information and work, and banning VPNs unnecessarily burdens law-abiding citizens. The government’s decision seems more about exerting control than addressing real issues.
In this digital age, the convenience of accessing information through the internet has largely replaced traditional libraries and encyclopedias. Blocking VPNs, which facilitate access to platforms like X, disrupt lives and livelihoods. The government must find better ways to address political dissent without infringing on constitutional rights.
The right to peaceful assembly, free expression, and access to information is guaranteed under Pakistan’s constitution. The ban also contradicts global norms of internet freedom, raising questions about Pakistan’s commitment to international standards.
With the PTA and other authorities enforcing these bans, there is also a risk of corruption. Many fear the ban will be used to extract bribes in exchange for approval letters or stamps. Such practices are unacceptable and undermine the fundamental rights of citizens.
Rather than pursuing ineffective bans, the government must focus on promoting dialogue, addressing grievances, and ensuring that constitutional freedoms are upheld for all. The larger issue here is one of priorities.
Pakistan faces countless challenges, from economic instability and unemployment to environmental degradation and a crumbling education system. In such a context, focusing on bans that target tools like VPNs, rather than addressing structural issues, seems shortsighted.
The state’s role should be to empower its citizens, not restrict them unnecessarily. Rather than resorting to measures that stifle dissent and create unnecessary obstacles for citizens, the focus should be on fostering trust, ensuring transparency, and protecting the fundamental rights of all Pakistanis. Only then can Pakistan hope to address its complex challenges and move toward a more inclusive and progressive society.
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor. She can be reached at: [email protected]
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer’s own and don’t necessarily reflect Geo.tv’s editorial policy.
Originally published in The News
