Answer

Introduction

Guru Tegh Bahadur’s principle of “fear none, frighten none” champions moral courage and compassionate power. It asserts that every human deserves dignity, equality, and freedom from oppression. In modern political systems, it becomes a guiding ethic to resist authoritarianism and uphold universal human rights for all.

Body

Interpretation in Human Rights & Limits of State Power

• Inviolability of Individual Dignity: The principle emphasizes that no authority should instill fear through coercion.
  Eg: Constitutional protections against custodial torture reinforce the right to dignity.
• Freedom of Belief and Expression: Refusing to frighten others implies respecting diverse ideologies without suppression.
  Eg: Article 25 safeguards religious freedom in plural societies.
• Proportional and Just Use of State Power: Strength prohibits arbitrary violence; force must only protect rights, not violate them.
  Eg: Strict judicial review of emergency powers ensures accountability.
• Empowering the Vulnerable Against Oppression: “Fear none” inspires individuals to speak against injustice without intimidation.
  Eg: Witness protection programmes encourage victims to come forward.
• Non-Violent Conflict Resolution: The message advocates restraint even when powerful, promoting democratic negotiation.
  

Challenges in Applying the Principle Today

• Expanding Surveillance and Digital Control: States use technology to monitor citizens, creating climates of fear.
  Eg: Pegasus-type spyware controversies raise privacy threats.
• Rising Majoritarianism: Minorities may fear cultural suppression or coercive assimilation.
  Eg: Debates on religious conversions generating societal insecurity.
• Authoritarian Policing and Excessive Enforcement: Fear-based security models undermine rights and peaceful dissent.
  Eg: Harsh crackdowns on protests like 2019-2020 Shahhen Bagh discourage democratic participation.
• Hate Speech and Online Bullying: Non-state actors instill fear, contradicting principles of harmony.
  Eg: Targeted harassment drives activists off digital platforms.
• National Security vs. Civil Liberties: Governments justify curbs in the name of security, affecting openness.
  Eg: Broad provisions in anti-terror laws limit bail and freedom of expression.
  

Conclusion

To truly follow this principle today, states must ensure accountable governance, protect civil liberties, and empower citizens to question injustice without fear. Promoting tolerance, humane policing, and rights-based policymaking can build a society where authority is balanced by empathy and neither fearing power nor inflicting fear

DOWNLOAD PDF