recognition without relations 127of the Jewish state, India functioned as a major sanctuary for Jewish refu-
gees. It off ered refuge to the beleaguered Jews of Iraq, Af ghan i stan, and,
to lesser extent, Eu rope. From India, these refugees eventually emigrated
to Mandate Palestine and later Israel.^119 A large number of Jews from
Eu rope took refuge in India during the late 1930s and 1940s, and Nehru
actively sought their employment and absorption. Some of the Jewish
refugees from Eu rope married prominent Indian fi gures, such as B. K.
Nehru, Shiva Rao, and M. N. Roy.^120
Facilitating the emigration of Jewish refugees, especially from Af ghan i-
stan and Iraq, became a priority for Israel, and at least since early 1949 the
Jewish Agency kept a representative in Bombay.^121 A formal immigration
offi ce was established in the city shortly after India’s recognition of Israel;
Aryeh Gance was appointed as the representative.^122 This port city in west-
ern India is geo graph i cally closer to Israel than elsewhere in India and had
a signifi cant Jewish presence. A few months later, Gance was promoted to
director of the Palestine Offi ce of the Jewish Agency. As the urgency of
refugee immigration gradually diminished, a separate consulate was es-
tablished in Bombay, and immigration became part of the consular func-
tion. Separate repre sen ta tion by the Jewish Agency became redundant.
Israel’s consular presence in India was much more complicated. Con-
sular duties are normally confi ned to matters relating to trade, shipping,
notary functions, issuance of passports and visas, and the registration
of the births, marriages, and death of its nationals. In short, it has only
commercial and functional duties, with no scope for diplomatic activities
or responsibilities. However, even to secure t his limited foot hold in India,
Israel had to invest considerable eff ort, time, persuasion, and diplomatic
capital. The formal approach in this direction began as early as in May
1950, over fi ve months before recognition. In a communication addressed
to the Indian high commissioner in London,^123 it informed New Delhi of
its decision to appoint F. W. Pollack as “Trade Commissioner of South
East Asia.”^124 It appears that there was some diplomatic misunderstand-
ing between the two sides, and the matter did not proceed further. In-
dia’s hesitation to recognize Israel largely contributed to its reluctance to
acknowledge, let alone respond, to the Israeli move.
Israel revived the matter following the September 1950 recognition.
Interpreting the earlier Indian silence, a se nior Israeli offi cial observed
that if Israel did not “assume that the High Commissioner failed to in-
form his government, we would be compelled to presume that the Indian
Government does not consider the term ‘South East Asia’ to include India