Who owns civil society?

Don't know who owns civil society? Problem lies with media refering any group of civilians as civil society. Looks like media must draft a guideline on eligibility to mention any group as civil society by consulting experts like Aruna Roy, Arundhati Roy etc..

If thy are all fighting for better society, don't they have some diligence that soldiers follow. Fight headon with points of conflict on subject of discussion which in this case is a bill. Why make provocative statements about methods and modus operandi? Let people exercise their freedom and do what they deem appropriate for a situation as long as it is peaceful and non-violent.

It's completely inappropriate to label Anna's movement as a dangerous phenomenon breeding impatience in the youth of this country. Anyway no need to substantiate that, as readers can distinguish it obviously.

Now I don't know if I would get classified as mass, though I have no concern over it, if I say that I don't mind supporting any cause that makes this country better including Anna's movement. Tomorrow if anyone else asks me to support their form of fight, either in the form of a movement or discussion or whatever that could be, I would support it if I see a clear benefit for this country. For that matter I would do so for every other cause to the extent feasible for me.

Everyone got their freedom of speech, but as a soldier fight with spirit against enemy, which in this case is corruption, rather than a tool and method used by other soldiers. Everyone cannot afford sophisticated ammunition, but if a latti is handy, what is wrong if anyone chooses to defend the community using a latti? Do you say they are not defending community and they can not claim themselves as community?