recognition without relations 115delays and controversies surrounding recognition, the absence of any
reference to diplomatic ties assumed greater signifi cance. In hindsight, it
is obvious that just as he was moving toward recognition, Nehru was also
facing counterpressures from those opposed to such a move. Thus the ab-
sence of any direct reference to the establishment of relations was appar-
ently a compromise. Because recognition was not followed by diplomatic
ties, a number of controversies arose over the legal status of recognition.
Was it de facto or de jure? According to K. P. Misra, India generally ex-
tends recognition without any reference to its de facto or de jure status.^42
In his February 1950 statement cited above, Nehru clearly stated that
“formal recognition involving an exchange of diplomatic mission” would
have to consider a number of factors. Not only was there no exchange of
diplomatic missions, but India even refused to treat the Israeli Consulate
in Bombay (Mumbai) as a diplomatic mission. Hence, some innovatively
argued that “in the case India has accorded only de facto recognition...
that has not been followed by full diplomatic intercourse or the confer-
ment of diplomatic immunities upon their representatives.”^43
A careful analysis would dispel any doubts about Indian recognition
and indicate that it was de facto as well as de jure in nature. Primarily,
Nehru’s February 1950 statement indicated that India had accepted
Israel’s de facto status even before its formal recognition. On a number of
subsequent occasions, India maintained that its declaration was de jure.
For example, in July 1971, the government informed the Lok Sabha:
“India extended de jure recognition to Israel in September 1950.”^44 An
offi cial report prepared by Israel’s se nior diplomat, Walter Eytan, off ers
interesting insights into the whole controversy. In early 1952, he visited
India and met all the leading Indian fi gures, including Prime Minister
Nehru. Upon his return to Israel, he submitted a long report called New
Delhi Diary, where he observed:
Miss [Leilamani] Naidu [who was dealing with Israel in the Ministry
of External Aff airs] also told me of the argument they had had in the
Ministry at the time they recognized Israel— whether it should be de
jure or de facto. The Secretary General [G. S. Bajpai], on being ap-
praised of this problem, had consulted all their legal authorities and
had come to the conclusion that he couldn’t see what diff erence there
was between de facto and de jure recognition; so they recognized us
pure and simple.^45