As actresses face restrictions over dance performances and poets and journalists confront detention and threats, growing concerns over freedom of expression in Pakistan raise questions about the European Union’s response and its preferential trade relationship with Islamabad.
Lahore, October 8, 2026: Three actresses, Urooj Khan, Nayab Khan and Masooma Malik, have been ordered to provide explanations within 48 hours for dance moves that cultural authorities in Pakistan’s Punjab province have described as “obscene.” The Punjab Arts Council has issued notices requesting their responses and warning of possible sanctions. However, no penalty has yet been announced against them. A few weeks earlier, in August, eight other actresses had been banned from performing on theatrical stages across the province for one month, also over performances deemed inappropriate by the authorities. These decisions do not concern political statements or accusations of blasphemy. They concern the way women dance in front of an audience. In Pakistan, restrictions on artistic expression can begin long before a criminal court becomes involved: with the assessment of a performance and an administrative authority’s decision on who is allowed to appear on stage.
The pressure, however, does not end at the theatre. On June 20, 2026, poet and journalist Ahmad Farhad was placed in administrative detention in the city of Bagh, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. According to Amnesty International, the authorities pressured him to publicly condemn protests in the region. Farhad went on hunger strike and was released on August 31. In Britain, Pakistani filmmaker and researcher Roshaan Khattak has reported receiving death threats that he links to his investigation into human rights violations in Balochistan. His personal account was published by Index on Censorship on July 21, 2026. These are different cases, involving different legal and factual circumstances. Together, however, they paint a picture of the pressures faced by people who write, investigate or create in the public sphere. They also bring Europe into the story: on July 16, 2026, the European Commission documented a deterioration in freedom of expression in Pakistan, while the country continues to enjoy preferential access to the European market. The question is not only what happens to artists and creators inside Pakistan, but also what European institutions do when the very mechanisms for protecting rights that they invoke prove inadequate.
For Ahmad Farhad, his detention in 2026 marked his second serious confrontation with the authorities in two years. On May 15, 2024, the poet and journalist disappeared from his home in Islamabad. His wife accused the intelligence services of abducting him, while the authorities initially denied holding him. The case reached the Islamabad High Court. On May 29, Farhad resurfaced in police custody in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, facing charges that included obstructing a public official and, subsequently, offences under anti-terrorism legislation. He was released on bail on June 14, 2024. When he was arrested again two years later, the authorities invoked legislation concerning the maintenance of public order. Amnesty International alleged that the authorities were attempting to force him to record a statement against the protests. This was not a case of banning a poem. At its centre was the journalistic and public activity of a man also known for his literary work.
In Balochistan, where conflict between security forces and armed separatist organisations has continued for years, freedom of expression is also linked to allegations of enforced disappearances. Baloch rights organisations reported that poet and writer Habiba Pirjan disappeared in Karachi on May 25, 2026. The allegation is serious, but the available evidence does not allow responsibility for her disappearance, or her current whereabouts, to be presented as established facts. The case requires an independent investigation. The broader problem, however, does not rest on a single testimony. In its assessment of Pakistan, the European Commission reports an increase in enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings during the 2023–2025 period, without corresponding accountability for those responsible. This finding adds another dimension to allegations involving people working in the cultural sphere: the risks described concern not only the ability to publish a work, but, in some cases, even the personal safety of those who participate in public debate.
The mechanisms of pressure differ. In Farhad’s case, there is a documented instance of administrative detention and a specific legal basis. In Pirjan’s case, there is an allegation of disappearance requiring further verification. In other cases, restrictions arise from criminal prosecutions over social media posts, public statements or journalistic material. In its July 16, 2026 report, the European Commission links the deterioration of freedom of expression to amendments to legislation governing electronic crimes, counterterrorism and blasphemy, noting that vaguely worded provisions can be used against journalists, human rights defenders and critics of those in power. The distinction between these different laws matters. Equally important, however, is the common outcome described by human rights organisations: public criticism can carry legal consequences, even when it does not involve incitement to violence.
On the theatrical stages of Punjab, restrictions have a different starting point. On August 25, 2026, reports in Pakistan documented the provincial government’s decision to ban eight actresses, including Mahi Rajput, Hina Sheikh and Malaika Shehzadi, from performing for one month. The decision was issued by the Information and Culture Department following monitoring reports on theatrical performances prepared by the Arts Council. The justification concerned dance moves and gestures deemed inappropriate. In the case of the three actresses in October, by contrast, the authorities had, as of October 9, only issued notices and requested explanations. The distinction is significant: in the first case, a professional ban was imposed, while in the second, an administrative procedure was still underway. The available reports do not identify the specific performances that prompted the October notices, nor do they provide a detailed account of the rules allegedly violated.
These interventions should not be confused with criminal legislation on blasphemy. Restrictions on theatrical performances are imposed by provincial cultural and administrative authorities as part of the regulation of public entertainment. By contrast, blasphemy provisions are contained in the Pakistan Penal Code. Section 295-C, in particular, concerns insults against the Prophet Muhammad and carries the death penalty. This is a different legal process, with potentially far more severe consequences. The coexistence of these mechanisms does not mean that every administrative ban constitutes religious persecution. It does, however, demonstrate that expression can be controlled at more than one level: from the provincial authority reviewing a dance performance to the criminal justice system examining a blasphemy allegation. In each case, the critical questions are which rule is being applied, how clearly it is defined, whether the sanction is proportionate and whether the person concerned has a meaningful opportunity to challenge it.
For Brussels, these are not exclusively Pakistan’s internal affairs. The country has benefited from the European Union’s GSP+ scheme since 2014, which provides preferential tariff treatment in exchange for commitments to implement international conventions relating to human and labour rights, the environment and good governance. According to the European Commission, Pakistani exports to the EU eligible for the scheme reached €7.5 billion in 2024, while estimated tariff savings amounted to €732 million. The same report acknowledges some positive legislative developments but identifies an overall deterioration in critical areas of human rights. GSP+ does not automatically make every ban on a theatrical performance a violation of trade conditions. It does, however, require the European Union to assess the actual implementation of the relevant international commitments. This is where the European stakes lie: not only in what the reports document, but in how their findings shape political dialogue with Islamabad.
Views: 5
Dimitra Staikou
Dimitra Staikou is a Greek lawyer, human rights advocate . She works as a journalist writing about human right's violations in South Asia and ctravels to India to get informed about the political situation there and the geopolitcs between India,China ,Pakistan and Bangladesh. She works for Greece's biggest newspaper Skai.gr and Huffpost.Gr as well as international distinguised news sites as Modern Diplomacy and Global Research.
