You are here: Home > Poll 2009 > Interviews > \'If dance bars weren\'t banned, would terror attacks not have taken place?\'

He was home minister during 26/11 and the tragedy cost him his job. NCP's R R Patil defends actions he took and those he didn't

What are your campaign issues?
Secularism and development. Only secularism can keep the country together and the country can progress only if there is secularism. On the development front, the NCP and Sharad Pawar have done a lot of good for farmers: the loan waiver of Rs 71,000 crore for the farmers across the country, out of which Rs 7,000 crore was allocated to Maharashtra. State Government also doled out approx Rs 6,000 odd crore for those who did not benefit from the national loan waiver. Approximately Rs 14,000 crore was given to the farmers of the state. The state Government has also done a lot of work on the irrigation front.

Do you consider it your failure that 26/11 took place during your tenure as home minister?
Despite our best efforts to keep a vigil, the attack took place. The terrorists had come here after deciding to die. It is not that we had not done anything for modernisation of the police, as much as Rs 800 crore had been spent. Terrorism is an issue world over, but the BJP had criticised us and said it would have not happened in their rule. But let me ask you one thing: how did Kargil, Akshardham and the Parliament attack take place during their rule?

After the Malegaon blast case was cracked, people like LK Advani criticised the same policemen who fought the terrorists. Hemant Karkare, who became a martyr in action against the terrorist, was defamed and derided by the Opposition parties.

Were we not alert enough to prevent an attack?  Don't you think that improvements in the force are needed?
This happened in America too, but that does not mean that they were not alert. I do believe improvement needs to take place but it won't be appropriate to comment on the police now as I am no longer the home minister.

Do you regret the statement you made after the attacks?
I had to pay for a statement I never made. The statement was twisted and distorted, but I don't want to fight with the media on this issue. I feel bad that the terrorists came to Mumbai and killed so many people, but we managed to kill all the nine terrorists and also to nab one alive, because of which we were able to corner Pakistan and make them accept their involvement.

It was during your tenure that the A N Roy was appointed as DGP, which was later squashed by the court. Do you think your decision was wrong?
I won't comment now as the court has taken up the matter. There was a problem in appointing SS Virk, because there were technical problems and even the Punjab government had raised objections, claiming that they had not relieved him yet. The decision to appoint Roy was taken by my party and it was right at that moment.

The train blasts investigation was taken up during your tenure and now both the ATS and the Crime Branch have contradictory opinions on the role of certain terrorists and the blasts they were involved in.
I have read about this in the newspapers, but I don't think any dispute exists in the Crime Branch.

You decided to shut dance bars. Don't you think that the police department's focus should have been on security rather than keeping vigil on the bars? Do you regret the decision?
In any case, vigil on dance bars was the job of the social service wing of the police. Are you saying that if the dance bars were not banned, the terror attack would have not taken place?