Pakistan To Implement National Firewall, Cracking Down on Online Dissent
The process will jeopardize the foundational principles of democracy and freedom of expression, experts say
[Islamabad] Pakistan has reportedly begun installing a nationwide firewall to regulate internet usage. The firewall will control access to social media sites, including Facebook, YouTube, and X, and will empower the government to identify IP addresses associated with what it calls “anti-state propaganda.”
Pakistan now joins countries like China, Iran, Turkey, and Russia in employing a national firewall to regulate internet content.
The firewall aims to pinpoint and restrict sources of propaganda content. As a result, all ‘unsolicited posts’ from both domestic and international sources will undergo screening via the firewall.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, an Islamabad-based telecommunications official told The Media Line that “the firewall aims to pinpoint and restrict sources of propaganda content. As a result, all ‘unsolicited posts’ from both domestic and international sources will undergo screening via the firewall.”
He said that the firewall will resemble those in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries and that its aim is to “eliminate” propaganda.
Details regarding the firewall’s cost and operational specifics have not been disclosed. According to some reports, China sold the system to Pakistan.
The government is also reportedly preparing to regulate virtual private networks (VPNs), a service through which internet users can shield their identities and mask their location in order to circumvent restrictions. Citizens may be required to inform the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority about the VPNs they are using, and anyone who fails to do so could face consequences.
The social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, was banned in Pakistan in April, leading many Pakistani X users to begin accessing the site through a VPN.
Pakistan’s government has not issued an official statement about the firewall, although Federal Minister for Law Nazeer Tarar recently alluded to upcoming social media legislation. The Media Line reached out to various federal officials for comment, none of whom responded as of this writing.
The Pakistani military recently condemned the alleged propaganda against state institutions on social media, referring to it as “digital terrorism.”
At the end of the 83rd Formation Commanders Conference, the Pakistan Army declared “a firm commitment to combat and defeat antimilitary campaigns proliferating across online platforms.”
The meeting was chaired by Gen. Asim Munir, the chief of army staff.
In a statement put out after the conference, the Armed Forces Media Wing said that the forum brought to light how “politically motivated digital terrorism, aided by foreign collaborators, aims to induce despondency in Pakistan, sow discord among institutions, particularly the armed forces, and spread lies and propaganda.”
Internet restrictions in Pakistan are not new, and the government has previously jammed nationwide internet access at various times. Various news websites have also been blocked, including those affiliated with newspapers. The Urdu and Pashto websites of Voice of America, the US’s state-owned international news broadcaster, have been blocked in Pakistan as well.
Firewalls are already in limited use in Pakistan, with government agencies using them to block certain websites and apps. Pakistan’s largest internet provider currently uses a firewall from Netsweeper, a Canadian software company.
A firewall system acts as a barrier between a trusted network and an untrusted network, monitoring and controlling incoming and outgoing traffic based on security rules.
Firewalls installed on the government level, such as those in China and various Gulf countries, can filter websites, block IPs, and shape internet traffic to enforce national policies and restrict access to undesired content.
The use of firewalls is now being expanded across the country. The latest firewall technologies are more efficient than older technologies, and a new system will make it easier for Pakistan to monitor social media content.
The Media Line spoke with some experts on the potential consequences of firewall installation in Pakistan.
Professor Adrian Calamel, a South Asian expert and senior fellow at the Washington-based Arabian Peninsula Institute, told The Media Line that entrusting the government with sole control over the flow of information carries significant risks.
Adopting tactics similar to authoritarian regimes like Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran could potentially align Pakistan with the totalitarian camp, undermining democratic values and fostering an environment conducive to censorship and state control over information. Without counternarratives, the government could shape public opinion to suit its agenda, perpetuating misinformation and reinforcing its authority unchallenged.
“Such a scenario could lead to abuses of power and the suppression of dissenting voices,” Calamel said.
“Adopting tactics similar to authoritarian regimes like Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran could potentially align Pakistan with the totalitarian camp, undermining democratic values and fostering an environment conducive to censorship and state control over information,” he continued. “Without counternarratives, the government could shape public opinion to suit its agenda, perpetuating misinformation and reinforcing its authority unchallenged.”
He warned that harsh government censorship would threaten “the foundational principles of democracy and civic engagement.”
Celia Mercier, head of Reporters without Borders’ South Asia desk, connected the internet crackdown to a broader suppression of press freedoms in the country.
“This contradicts political parties’ election promises and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s [stated] support for journalists amidst allegations of electoral fraud and military interference in politics,” she said.
Farieha Aziz, co-founder of the Karachi-based digital rights advocacy group Bolo Bhi, told The Media Line that many questions remain as to the scope of Pakistan’s firewall.
“While the latest deployment remains uncertain, speculation hints at centralizing it at gateways for all internet traffic, raising concerns about encryption, privacy, and online transaction security, beyond just information and speech,” she said.
She noted that the installation of a firewall could put online banking at risk by making it easier for hackers to access bank passwords.
Aziz said that Pakistan’s attempt to control the internet may be less effective than China or Saudi Arabia’s. “Pakistan lacks economic autonomy, and its people are unlikely to accept such control, making this approach likely unsuccessful,” she said.
Syed Jowdut Nadeem, a digital rights activist and member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, told The Media Line that the Pakistani government has been wary of social media since the 2011 Arab Spring, during which citizens used social media as part of their organizing to overthrow authoritarian regimes.
Social media has democratized governance in Pakistan by allowing citizens to voice opinions, hold the powerful accountable, and engage in public discourse. This empowerment clashes with the ruling elite’s preference to control the narrative.
“Social media has democratized governance in Pakistan by allowing citizens to voice opinions, hold the powerful accountable, and engage in public discourse,” Nadeem said. “This empowerment clashes with the ruling elite’s preference to control the narrative.”
He attributed the latest wave of internet restrictions to the popularity of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, which has been openly critical of state policies.
The state needs democratic principles to function. Youth will find ways around these controls, increasing tension between the government and citizens.
“Such restrictive measures would be counterproductive, isolating Pakistan and risking alienation and legitimacy loss,” Nadeem said.
“The state needs democratic principles to function,” he continued. “Youth will find ways around these controls, increasing tension between the government and citizens.”
