Spearheading the anti-war effort at Stanford University, the Stanford Coalition for Peace and Justice is one of Stanford’s most pronounced activist groups. Over a year ago on the eve of the war in Iraq, the Stanford Coalition for Peace and Justice (SCPJ) organized a group of Stanford students to conduct an anti-war protest in San Francisco. A year later, one of the protestors is sharing his insight on the effectiveness of the protest and what SCPJ actually accomplished. Junior Harvir Singh joins us to shed some light on the protest.

Stephen: Harvir, before we get into the issues here, I was hoping you could provide a context for where your political views lie on the traditional ideological spectrum.

Harvir: Let me be clear. I oppose Bush’s foreign policy in almost every way possible. I think the war in Iraq was misguided, unjust, unnecessary, and for all the wrong reasons. In fact, most of the opinions presented by the Review I vehemently contest.

Stephen: So it’s safe to say you’re not conservative per se. How did you get involved in SCPJ’s protest?

Harvir: An avid anti-war supporter, the day after Bush dropped bombs in Iraq I was whisked away with a group of Stanford students to San Francisco intent on participating in one of the largest anti-war protests in decades. Fueled by a powerful desire to stop the war at any cost, I and a hundred fifty Stanford students marched the city, blocking the major intersection of 3rd and Folsom.

Stephen: That must have been an interesting experience to say the least.

Harvir: My experience that day was no less than spectacular. As I stood there in the middle of the crosswalk and looked down the two streets of the intersection, literally hundreds of cars were packed in for over a city block. Cars upon cars piled up at the intersection and were blocked as far as we could see behind. Honking, singing, chanting, yelling, were all interspersed into one noise: “There ain’t no power like the power of the people cause the power of the people don’t stop! Say WHAT?”

Indeed, a group of students that day had the power to halt the normal lives of thousands of people. Combined with the rest of the populace that was protesting, we managed to shut down hundreds of San Francisco businesses. But as I was standing there that day, sometime between chanting furiously and being dragged away by several police officers, a subtle but powerful thought popped up in my mind. Then it came again, and again, and again, until I was continuously plagued with the thought: “Will what we do here today stop the war?” And repeatedly my mind told me, to my dismay: “No, No, No!” Suddenly a tremendous sense of uselessness overtook me as I came to this realization. No amount of protesting we do here today will stop the bombs being dropped over Baghdad.

As this feeling of uselessness lingered, I started observing closely the cars we had jammed on the road. Some individuals stood outside their cars, observing our actions no doubt with anger. Some scowled at us, some sat patiently in their cars. All were eager to get back to their jobs and tasks for the day. A series of questions slipped into my thoughts. “What if we’re preventing someone in the traffic from getting their cancer therapy? What if some pregnant lady can’t get to the hospital right now? What if that guy has a life changing job interview or that lady urgently needs to make an appointment?”

Suddenly I realized that by standing here in the middle of the intersection, preventing so many people from going on with their daily lives (some of whom probably shared our sentiments), we were probably doing a great deal more harm than good.There’s an adage from South Asia that I often remind myself of and try to live by: “If I can’t do anything useful, at least I would like to do as little harm as possible.” And here I was, sitting in the middle of one of the biggest intersections in SF, being utterly useless, and doing a great deal of harm.

Stephen: So all in all, how do you feel about the protest? How effective do you feel this protest was in advancing SCPJ’s goal of stopping the war in Iraq?

Harvir: Looking back on that day, I ask myself what we did manage to accomplish. One thing that comes to mind is that we did totally disable the city’s public transportation system. All the public buses were used to shuttle the thousands of protesters from the streets to the police stations and city docks (where the overflow went). But again, halting the activity of an entire city for one day did nothing to stop the ongoing war in Iraq.

Stephen: Looking back, do you have any critiques of your actions or of the protest group at large?

Harvir: One problem I think is that most of us who participated in the protest that day, including myself, got carried away by our emotions. Needless to say the crowd was incredibly emotionally charged. The awe of the experience only heightened our feelings. As I observed the hype and excitement I started wondering why many of the students were here. Did they truly understand the magnitude of the event? Did they truly oppose the war? Or were some of them here simply to experience what it was like to protest for the sake of protesting and causing mayhem? No doubt many, including myself, believed in the cause. We wanted to stop the war. But as I conversed with and observed the hype of the other students, I felt many did not truly understand why they were standing there on that day. Caught up in their emotions and excitement they joined the bandwagon just for the sake of protesting.

Stephen: What effect did all that charged emotion have on the group’s collective judgment and decision making processes?

Harvir: A natural result of being so emotionally charged is a loss of reason and judgment. In hindsight, obviously, preventing people from going to their jobs and creating traffic jams is not going to change the political situation. No doubt, we could not realize this, since we were so caught up in the hype and excitement. We simply did not think of what impact this action would truly have. The civil disobedience of Gandhi succeeded because he knew how and when to react to a situation, rationally and reasonably. He also believed without hesitance in his cause and was willing to die for it. Our civil disobedience failed not only because we simply did not think rationally, but because many of us did not even believe in the cause and were there simply for the experience. Finally, how many of us were actually willing to die for this? I certainly wasn’t.

Stephen: Many argue that most college protestors believe less in their cause than in protest itself. Where do you feel the impetus for this protest originated from?

Harvir: It seems to me this is a symptom of a bigger issue. Students at college campuses all across the nation have an ideal notion of the concept of civil disobedience. Ever since our high school U.S. history class, we’ve revered civil disobedience as the best vehicle for social change. As a result, all of us at one point or another want to participate in a protest. We want to experience first hand the methods that have created great change. The problem is that we don’t truly understand how to participate. Overcome by emotion, not really believing in a cause, and protesting only for the sake of the experience, being useless and ultimately causing only harm: this is not the way to social change.

Stephen: Any thoughts as to how SCPJ and Stanford’s many other activist groups could advocate or protest for their causes more effectively?

Harvir: So, how do we make protesting more effective? I’m not really sure of the answer to that, and I’m not really sure it’s possible with such an emotionally charged group of students and individuals across the nation. The only advice I would give protestors now is, as long as you’re going to be useless, at least you can try to do as little harm as possible.

Stephen: Thank you.