recognition without relations 129are accredited to] the whole of India, and not Bombay only.”^134 As subse-
quent events proved, Shimoni clearly misread the Indian situation. Pol-
lack’s successors were offi cially confi ned to the state of Maharashtra and
could travel to other parts of India only as “private” foreign nationals.^135
Meanwhile, a formal notifi cation regarding Pollack was issued on Sep-
tember 28, 1951. Issued in the name of President Rajendra Prasad, it bore
the signature of Prime Minister Nehru.^136
The whole arrangement took a diff erent turn when the government of
India enquired about the legal status of Pollack. Was he “an honorary or
decarriere offi cer”?^137 Since Pollack was not a regular career diplomat, in
January 1953 he was designated as the honorary consul of India. Simulta-
neously, eff ective January 1, 1953, the status of the Consular Agency of
Israel was raised to the level of consulate, and Pollack was named honor-
ary consul.^138 Within months, a regular arrangement was made, and on
June 1, 1953, Gabriel Doron became Israel’s fi rst career diplomat to as-
sume offi ce in India. Between then and 1992, when full relations were
established, sixteen Israeli offi cials headed the mission in Bombay.
This consular arrangement faced a number of problems. No evidence
is currently available in the public domain in India regarding the territo-
rial jurisdiction of the consulate. India often emphasized the Israeli pres-
ence in Bombay. But the Israelis contended that their emissary was ac-
credited to the Government of India and hence its jurisdiction extended
to the whole of the country. Israeli documents share this narrow interpre-
tation. Following his interaction with the offi cials in New Delhi, in Feb-
ruary 1960, Israeli Consul Michael Michael observed that Indian offi -
cials had advised him “to be satisfi ed with being on Indian soil, to keep a
low profi le and to refrain from attempting to win over public opinion....
[Mirza Rashid A.] Baig, Head of the Protocol in the Ministry of External
Aff airs, advised Michael to visit New Delhi as seldom as possible, and not
to maintain contacts with heads of missions, apart from consulates.”^139
In another report sent in October of that year, he maintained that due to
Arab pressure, “the Indians interpret the ‘status quo’ in relations as lim-
iting the Israeli consulate to activity in the narrow consular fi eld. In con-
trast, Michael has asserted that the consulate is Israel’s representative
mission in the full meaning of the word, and its duty is to behave like any
embassy in India.”^140
These internal tensions between the two sides exploded openly just
before Nehru’s death and fi rmly established some new ground rules. In
April 1964, Consul Peretz Gordon decided to or ga nize In de pen dence