What are your views on Foreign Minister S.M.Krishna not defending Home Secretary Pillai ?

Diplomatic niceties are changing over period, yielding to dynamic shifts in focii of dialogues that range from positive working toward resolution to aggressive pressures to extract strategic compromises! Didnt we see the chinese making newer claims on our teritory even while inking cooperations on trade and economic spheres? Mr Pillai is a senior administrator - may not be full time Foreign Service man though - who should be conversant with the nuances of bilateral relations with neighbours. He may have (been prompted to) wantonly set the tone for discussion on the issue, which may have been bypassed otherwise, in exchange for minor goodies!! The silence of SMK confirms the possibility. The routine rejoinder of the Pak FM is an archaic reference of niceties when things have already complicated beyond mere niceties to crude impediments to bilateral relations. The subject brooks serious discussion rather than engage courteous appologies.

We cannot decide if Mr G.K. Pillai's remarks were ill-timed or well-timed. It is really a matter for his Minister and the P.M. But there was no need for Mr S.M. Krishna to defend Mr Pillai. Mr Pillai's remarks had obviously hit Pakistan where it hurts, but the Pak F.M. could not counter attack Mr Pillai of falsehood. All that the poor guy could do was to whine like a baby that it was not the proper time for the remarks ! In this context, Krishna's 'diplomatic' silence simply meant :'If the cap fits, put it on !' Quite naturally Pak F.M. must have felt as if Krishna was rubbing the salt already thrown into the wound by Pillai. The resultant 'compounded' irritation resulted in Pak F.M.'s undiplomatic remarks on the Indian Team having gone without doing their home work + other bla, bla. Once again Krishna spoke through eloquent silence. Congratulations to Krishna for having done what Buddha did when once, an ill-mannered guy thought it fit to pour scorn on him. Buddha remained his normal serene self. When the guy who had insulted Buddha told him that it was due to absence of self-respect he had not counter attacked, Buddha said : "Friend, I did not accept any of the stuff you offered. So, they rightfully belong to you !"

It is the diplomatic boxing without any gloves. Energize your line & pre-empt the counter defence. SMK read the facts with an obvious purpose. Qureshi must have been peeved as a result he overreached at the cost of being incoherent. Today Diplomatic courtesies ,as pointed out by Bala sir, have evolved into an aggressive style. At the end of the day what matters is the overall International Acceptance & the socio-economic progress we have achieved. It is the nasty atomic potential because of which the whole world wants to act with caution

Well!!!! Surely he must have defended him....... AM Krishna has proved himself to be a bad boss!! A boss has right to oppose his fellow. But, it is the duty of a boss to defend his fellow men before others!!

Grandpa homer 70 said it and totally agree with him. S M Krishna behaved in most matured manner. No one agrees to what Qureshi said, but if S M Krishna would have replied, that would have created a controversy on India's end and that was not required. And present, if you read International media, not one has appreciated Quereshi's statements but criticized. After coming back, Ms. Nirupama Rao came forward to answer all of the statements and allegations of Qureshi, and that was right thing to do. My concern is why even to for such meets and waste our time, and create such controversies, these are unfruitful because our counterpart is not matured and does not want any talks or peace. And by they Mr. Raj Kish, you have to read S M Krishna's statements, he said, I did not get any chance to talk back to India, you cannot make statements based on claims of Pakistan media.

Even he is not giving proper answer when ask about human right violation's question,he should also rise question of human right violation and political activities in POK. what ever on Pillai isseu,Mr.Krishna Failed to defended. simple reason is G.K.Pillai is Official of Indian Government, and Indian Government have all right to rise issue On ISI's terrorist activities...where Hafis Said is not any Government part of Pakistan,still Qureshi defended him... even today Foreign Ministry is Silent on Qureshi's today's press conference,when he claim that Mr.Krishna not come with proper mind and not willing to do flexibly in talk..Indian Ministry shold slam with single reason that if he want to make other conference on same topic,than why held Press conference with Mr.Krsihan yesterday...? both minister can did individual,than why? also why make reverse comment on yesterday when he said that both talk Openly n many more? today he is saying clean lie....

I think that Mr Krishna should have protested against the statement of Mr Qureshi but as Mr Raj Kish said he was ordered from New Delhi to remain tight lipped and thats what he did.

he is more a politician than a minister

Mr. GK Pillai is not a small boy that some body has to defend him. It is for him to come clear on the statement that he made. Was this brief given to him? Because he spoke from the position of some authority unlike in the case of Hafiz Sayeed. Mr. SM Krishna has done a nice job under the circumstances. Had he spoken anything on the table, the total breakdown would have taken place and another Agra would have been repeated. That is what the BJP like minds would always want to happen. SM Krishna is enough matured to understand these things. He understands that we have two enemies that we have to confront- One obviously is Pakistan that we easily know. The other is this communal forces gathering together and creating obstacles in our path to progress. We Indians need to be very very careful with the second danger, because we don't understand this as our enemy.