Ideally, philosophy and religion should not be mixed at a superficial level, and the development of philosophy should not be separated from the existence of civil society. However, philosophy, politics, economics, ecology, and religion are all connected, as is civic action. There are people who refuse to accept the status quo, inequality, injustice, or casteism and communalism. They do not support power systems based on fundamentalist beliefs. They believe everyone deserves dignity and justice, and they do more than hold these beliefs—they take action to make them a reality. Ultimately, the evolution of human society is deeply linked with the realization of values and positioning. Where do we stand?

The relevance of civil society organizations is determined by their commitment and values. When an individual initiates to advance the welfare and betterment of society, they are inspired by the values and sentiments of humanity, love, justice, and coexistence. A social activist and a civil society organization initially get no cooperation from the dominating community, government, and the market. Quite often, they are opposed to it, only to realise that the journey ahead will never be smooth, but instead will be full of impediments. In such situations, it would be a mere disillusionment to accept that the relevance of civil society organizations will be determined by the dominating community, government, and expansionist market. Only the society that will go through the process of change, through the change of the lives of people living in it, can determine the relevance of these institutions.

Whenever civil society organizations stray from their core values and the origins of social struggles, they must confront the question of their relevance. Similarly, civil society organizations depend solely on resources from the market or the government; in such circumstances, they are viewed with suspicion. Historically, these institutions received financial support from the wealthy community, but the expectation of profit was never a condition for such support.

In these difficult times, it is crucial for civil society organisations to remain steadfast in upholding fundamental values, as these values are recognised as the basis for their initiatives and their dignity derives from them.

These values can be traced back to ancient Indian philosophy and to Gandhi, Ambedkar, Phule, and other social activists. They have played a significant role in making India a better society and country for one and all.

Indian Philosophy and the Civil Actions

Some 2700 years ago, the philosophical and theological traditions that emerged in India were fundamentally opposed to one another. One philosophy holds that God exists and is the Creator, whereas another has the opposite: no God and no Creator. During that period, multiple opposing beliefs emerged, but they did not attempt to eradicate one another, which demonstrates the value of coexistence. That period should be compared with the present to determine whether, in ancient India, freedom of expression was more mature or whether it is more mature in the present context.

The history of social initiative in India is extensive. In the later Vedic period, as Indian society experienced the emergence of impertinence, diverse philosophical viewpoints also emerged and found a place within it. At that time, it was widely held that the world was created by God, and almost concurrently, Buddhism and Jainism emerged, refuting the existence of God.

Sankhya Philosophy by Maharshi Kapil— Truth must stand the test of evidence. There is no existence of truth without proof or evidence. There are two ways to prove the truth: perception and inference. The meaning of perception is to know the existence of a thing through the mind.

Inferences are of three types: inference of cause through effect, like the inference of rain through clouds. The inference of effect through cause, like the inference of rain in the hills by seeing a flood in the river. Third is resemblance, like the movement of a person from one place to another.

Sankhya philosophy refutes the notion that the world is created by the Creator, i.e., God. This philosophy believes in the idea that everything emerges all by itself, and there is nothing like a new genesis.

Punya Kassp, or Purna Kashyap (Doctrine of Inaction or Nihilism)—Karma does not affect the soul in any way; whoever may be the doer of the action or make somebody else act or make someone injured or make someone murder somebody, the soul remains unaffected by any action. When a man dies, all fundamental elements with which the body is made return to their root from where they have been taken. After death, nothing remains in existence, neither body nor soul.

Makkhali Gosal (Determinism)— This is a fatalistic or predeterministic philosophy. According to this philosophy, no one can do anything, and no one can prevent anything from happening. Incidents take place, and nobody can change the occurrence of any happening by their will. Every individual has to experience his worldly existence.

Ajit Keskambal (Doctrine of Annihilation)—The doctrine of annihilation relates that nothing remains intact after death. Karma bears neither fruit nor any effect that has to be endured further by the soul. Heaven and hell do not exist. The man is made into this world with some aspects of grief, and the soul cannot save itself from that. The soul must be born repeatedly. The pain and suffering come to an end after taking birth in eighty-four lakh different life forms.

Pakudh Kachchan (Saptnityavad)—A creature is made out of seven elements: earth, water, radiance, delight, air, grief, and soul. Every aspect is free from the others, and they do not affect each other and cannot be destroyed in any way whatsoever.

Sanjay Belttheputt (Doctrine of Deflection/Scepticism)—Absolute, beyond-doubt, and reliable knowledge can never be attained. If I feel and realize the existence of heaven, then only I will accept its existence; otherwise, I won’t accept its existence. The concept of karma has been denied in the doctrine of deflection, or skepticism.

Chaturyam Sanwarvad (Mahaveer/ Nignath Nath Putt)—The soul has to take rebirth according to the sinful deeds committed by it in previous and present births. Through penance and self-discipline, the wicked deeds should be abolished.

Jainism (Syādvad)—According to Jain philosophy, the point of view from a different angle may result in a different perception, thereby resulting in diverse knowledge. It propagates not two angles (truth or falsehood) but the seven-stage technique of logic. The diversity of this knowledge may be of seven kinds:

1. Syād-asti: In a certain sense, it is.
2. Syād -nāsti: In a certain sense, it is not.
3. Syād-asti-nāsti: In a certain sense, it is, and it is not.
4. Syād-avaktavya: In a certain sense, it is indescribable.
5. Syād-asti-avaktavya: In a certain sense, it is, and it is indescribable.
6. Syād-nāsti-avaktavya: In a certain sense, it is not, and it is indescribable.
7. Syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavya: In a certain sense, it is, and it is not, and it is indescribable

Syād may be taken as a thing or element, or may be taken as a concept. A visual experience or may be accepted as a creature. It agrees with the view that Syād is present in some circumstances and absent in others. Similarly, in a certain sense, it is, and it is not, and in a certain sense, it is indescribable; also, in a certain sense, it is, and it is inexpressible. At the same time, in a certain sense, it is not, and it is indescribable. Further, in a certain sense, it is, and it is not, and it is inexpressible.

In the real sense, Syād is relative to place, condition, experience, perception, and knowledge. The form of Syād depends solely on an individual’s personal experience.

If, as human beings, we realize that we do not know everything, we might agree to disagree and continue to live together peacefully. In this pretext, civic actors continue to make people, society, the state, and the powerful realize that the only option we have is to live and let live with dignity. However, the politics of power does not want this to happen; therefore, civic actions become political actions, as they must counter the political actions of individuals and institutions for the sake of the common good.