BHANGEELAAR! Examining the evidence of the role of an "inner circle" in the context of the move to undermine democracy in Tower Hamlets - Part 1

1140 Hrs GMT
London
Saturday
04 December 2010

Editor © Muhammad Haque


Explaining the significance of our publishing texts of the email as sent to Abdul Aziz Sardar.

Firstly, he [Abdul Aziz Sardar] was still a councillor on Tower Hamlets Council in April 2010. Secondly, he was shown as a ‘senior’ member of the ‘group’ including a number of councillors who in March-April 2010, was ‘introduced’ by the ‘councillors’ who appeared to have an ‘inside’ track at those particular events.

Those particular events were held in several Tower Hamlets Borough Council Wards especially situated in Mile End East, Weavers and Spitalfields. The very first such event had been held in Shadwell/Wapping area. The second was held in Bethnal Green south.
At “those particular events” it was noticeable that a small group, consisting of Abbas Uddin ‘Helal’, Abdul Aziz Sardar and a handful of ‘new candidates for election as councillor’ behaved as if they were part of an inner circle. It was from that group that ‘proposals’ as to who would be introduced as ‘formal’ chair of the given ‘event’ came.

It followed that the same ‘inner circle’ also went through the names of ‘speakers’ who appeared to be called by one of the ‘circle’ acting as the person actually ‘conducting’ proceedings.

To ordinary members of the community present [or even generically speaking], no information was available as to the criteria on which such ‘decisions’ were being made.

This was the case at all the events that the BHANGEELAAR! Campaign observed.

More on the observed facts will be published in this series and updated on due occasions and carried in later parts of this our latest series of exclusive documentary on the particular period [January 2010 – May 2010]

Back to Abdul Aziz Sardar.

He was stated at those events to be a “senior” member of the community and a “leader”.

There was no evidence produced in the context of campaigns for democracy in the wider community to substantiate such words. It was accepted or rather allowed to be recited at the events mainly because those attending had been told about the events by the “inner circle” as described above. So the invitees were more or less already in agreement with the “inner circle”. To them, no serious issues existed on why anyone, as typified by Abdul Aziz Sardar in this context, would be given such high accolade at the events!

This left the question hanging as to the credibility of the “inner circle” [see above] appearing to claim that it [“inner circle” ] was in fact opposed to the system of “democracy” being proposed to be altered to one where a mayor got to be the executive as well as the political boss at the local Borough Council.

The bureaucratic records about Tower Hamlets Council will of course show that Abdul Aziz Sardar was a councillor for a number of years during which time he also got to occupy the post of ordinary [old style] mayor of Tower Hamlets.

But those bureaucratic records were not helpful to any campaign that was seeking to stop an even more bureaucratic and anti-democratic concentration of Council powers being brought about at the expense of the say for ordinary people in so many things that the Council has ‘powers’ on an d as affecting the day to day lives of people in the locality.

What kind of democratic campaigner could Abdul Aziz Sardar be described as on the truth of his role in the community over the years since he arrived in Tower Hamlets from another town in England?

There could not be much by way of objective evidence that would show Abdul Aziz Sardar as being a campaigner for the community. He became ‘known’ only after he got on to the Tower Hamlets Council.

What has his record been on the Council on advancing the democratic cause?

Has he sacrificed his own interests in order to advance the rights of people in the Borough?

If so, what was the occasion that this occurred?

This question cannot be answered because there has been no objective publication of any objectively independently verifiable evidence to positively meet the criteria underlying the question.

[To be continued]