recognition without relations 123
the formal decision to establish diplomatic relations still remained to
be confi rmed by the Cabinet. This was to be done as soon as the new
Government was set up following the elections [that is, to the fi rst
Lok Sabha] a few weeks later.^89Eytan further learned that the Indian government was working on the
bud get for its mission in Israel. The message was obvious: normalization
was a foregone conclusion and Nehru just needed ratifi cation from his
cabinet. But it did not happen.
The view that India was committed to establishing a resident mission
in Israel was shared by Nehru’s biographer Gopal, who observed: “In
March 1952 Nehru informed the Israeli government [through the visiting
Foreign Ministry Director General Walter Eytan] that there was no major
objection to the exchange of diplomatic representatives, but it might be
better to wait for the formation of a new government after the elections
[to the fi rst Lok Sabha that were then underway].”^90 Similarly, in Decem-
ber 1952, India’s ambassador in Moscow, K. P. S. Menon, informed Eytan:
“I am very sorry that the exchange of Missions between India and Israel
had not yet taken place. I hope and trust that it is now only a matter of
few weeks. I shall do all I can from this end, as I am really keen that we
should establish a Mission in Israel without further delay.”^91 Angry over
Nehru’s broken promise, in 1959 Prime Minister David Ben- Gurion
lamented: “I cannot understand how Mr. Nehru fi ts his behavior to Israel
with [Mahatma] Gandhi’s philosophy of universal friendship. Mr. Nehru
gave defi nite promises to the Director- General of our Foreign Ministry
eight years ago that he would soon establish normal diplomatic relations
with Israel, but so far he has not kept his word.”^92 Normalization would
not materialize until January 1992.
Bud getary considerations seemed the primary reason for the initial
absence of diplomatic exchanges. An offi cial note prepared in December
1950 declared: “Owing to reasons of fi nancial stringency, the case of Israel
has presumably to wait for more propitious times.”^93 This appeared logi-
cal. At that time, the absence of diplomatic relations was the rule and not
the exception. As Krishna Menon told Michael Brecher, “We don’t send
Ambassadors to a lot of countries.”^94 In 1947, for example, India’s resident
missions in the Middle East were confi ned to Cairo, Tehran, and Istanbul.
Cairo had the only resident Indian mission in the entire Arab world!^95
The Indian Foreign Offi ce needed to reduce its diplomatic bud get
through a number of administrative mea sures, including postponing