128 recognition without relationsin a way [that would] require the Indian Government to take cogni-
zance.”^125 Thus, in November 1950 Pollack’s title was changed to “Trade
Commissioner for Israel in South East Asia including India.” As per the
prevailing practice of coordinating through the Indian mission in Lon-
don, Israel communicated Pollack’s new designation through Krishna
Menon.^126 This channel was not proving eff ective. Irritated over delays
and diffi culties in using London as the conduit, Israel “abandoned the
procedure and started communicating directly with New Delhi.”^127
India’s recognition the previous September also emboldened this ap-
proach. Accordingly, on December 28, 1950, the Israeli Foreign Ministry
sent a cable to its Indian counterpart informing the appointment of Pol-
lack as “Trade Commissioner for India and South Asia.”^128 After pro-
longed negotiations, correspondence, and clarifi cations, an offi cial In-
dian notifi cation to this eff ect was issued on March 1, 1951.^129
Around this time, the economic division in the Israeli Foreign Offi ce
wanted to terminate Pollack’s appointment as trade commissioner. Mea-
ger trade prospects made his continuation an unviable proposition. Ya’acov
Shimoni, who was handling the Asia desk, was in favor of continuing the
arrangement, because it had been secured after prolonged eff ort.^130 Israel
settled for a compromise. To consolidate its foothold in India, especially as
the latter was not moving on the issue of resident missions, Israel decided
to concurrently appoint Pollack as its consular agent.
Because of the previous delays and inaction, a cable regarding Pollack’s
nomination was sent directly to Prime Minister Nehru, who was also
India’s foreign minister. This change of strategy had the desired eff ect,
and on March 8, New Delhi responded favorably: “The President of India
is pleased to recognize provisionally the appointment of Mr. F. W. Pollack
as Consular Agent of Israel at Bombay.” A formal gazette notifi cation to
this eff ect was issued on the same day.^131 Pollack, however, was unhappy
with this new arrangement, and said that it was “not my intention to
make offi cial use the title Consular Agent which is much lower than that
of Trade Commissioner for South East Asia.”^132 Concurring with this as-
sessment, Shimoni consoled him, saying that Israel viewed this “simply
as a functional and technical arrangement, at least until we [that is, Israel]
establish our legation in India.”^133 While trying to persuade Pollack to
formally submit the letter of his nomination, Shimoni cautioned that he
was “accredited to the Government of India and not to the Government of
Bombay [later on Maharashtra] and the sphere of your jurisdiction, I as-
sume, in contrast to that of most of the foreign consuls at Bombay—[you