recognition without relations 131Justifying the move, Foreign Minister Dinesh Singh told the parliament
that such a function would not have been permitted anywhere in the
capital.^141 During the debate, the lawmaker H. V. Kamath pointedly raised
a vital legal question: Is it a fact that the Consul General of Israel is ac-
credited to the entire territory of the Republic of India?”^142 This critical
issue had never been clarifi ed by the Indian government. As subsequent
developments indicated, India behaved as if the consul was accredited
not to the entire territory of India but only to the state of Maharashtra,
whose provincial capital was Bombay. As mentioned above, while Israeli
consuls were allowed to travel beyond Maharashtra, they could only do so
as foreign nationals, not as consuls. According to various Israelis who
had served in Bombay, until the early 1970s there were no visible restric-
tions on their movements, except to sensitive border areas. They had easy
access to India’s minister of external aff airs and often met the Indian
prime ministers.^143 Their offi cial movements, however, were restricted to
Maharashtra. In 1982, India even expelled the Israeli consul for a contro-
versial media interview. It was only in 1989 that the consular jurisdiction
was formally extended to the southern Indian state of Kerala, which has
historic links to and a signifi cant presence of Jewish people.
Diplomatic Contacts
Meanwhile, by late 1951 Israel was troubled by the absence of
formal ties with India. Even a year after recognition, New Delhi was not
taking any steps in that direction. Concerned by this, some within the
Israeli foreign offi ce proposed opening a legation in New Delhi without
insisting on “reciprocity.” Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett did not favor
such an idea.14 4 As it happened with China, he insisted on the propriety
of mutuality. Though Israel was small and new, he was not prepared to
forgo diplomatic protocols in favor of pragmatism. Gopal admitted that
“the Israeli insistence on reciprocity created a deadlock.”^145 Alternatively,
it was felt that the Indian envoy in Turkey could be concurrently ap-
pointed as “Minister to Tel Aviv.”^146 Either way, Israel was extremely keen
to have some form of residential repre sen ta tion as soon as possible.
In the light of the similarities it found with India, formalization of re-
lations was of paramount importance to Israel. Therefore, in an attempt
to clarify the Indian stand and facilitate normalization, it sought to estab-
lish contacts at “the highest possible levels” and decided to depute the