136 recognition without relationsshifting its consulate from Bombay to New Delhi. Such a move appeared
logical in the wake of the Indian shift regarding diplomatic repre sen ta-
tion. In August 1953, it decided that eff ective September 15, “offi cers sta-
tioned elsewhere than at the headquarters of the Government of India
will not be deemed to be members of the Diplomatic Mission, and will no
longer be included in the Diplomatic List.”^169 Transferring the consulate
to New Delhi in accordance with the new regulations had drawbacks. In
the early 1950s, Israel was still hoping for a reciprocal move from India on
normalization. Speaking about diplomatic ties, Nehru highlighted the
reciprocal nature of relations and clearly declared:
Yes. If we send an Ambassador to Washington or Nanking, they may
also send an Ambassador to New Delhi. The Australian Minister for
Foreign Aff airs has informally indicated to the Government of India
that the Australian Government will be happy to raise the status of
the Australian High Commissioner here to that of Minister. Natu-
rally it means that our representative in Australia will also become a
Minister.^170It was obvious that India favored reciprocal relations, and thus Israel
would not be able to shift its consulate to New Delhi without the latter
opening a resident mission in Israel, something Nehru had been resist-
ing since the mid- 1950s.
This dilemma perhaps explains why Israel explored the possibility of
the Indian ambassador in Turkey being concurrently accredited to Israel.
Such a move might have enabled Israel to have a consulate in New Delhi
endowed with full diplomatic status. Others had a diff erent view. They
felt that a consulate in New Delhi, being of a lower repre sen ta tion, would
attract undue attention, given that the Arab states had full- fl edged em-
bassies in the Indian capital.^171 However, by the time Israel was contem-
plating a consulate in New Delhi without any reciprocal arrangement,
India’s position on normalization had hardened, and any change in the
status quo became remote.^172
Following his visit to New Delhi to attend an annual conference of the
World Health Or ga ni za tion in 1961, the Israeli diplomat Gideon Rafael
remarked: “Besides regular meetings with leading representatives of
India at the United Nations, sporadic friendly talks with Mrs. Pandit,
Nehru’s sister, and agitated and exasperating meetings with Krishna
Menon, the Prime Minister’s confi dant, no offi cial dialogue of consequence