110 recognition without relationsconsidered fi rst by the Security Council. As we are not a member of the
Security Council, it is not necessary at this stage to formulate our views
on this question.”^8 Without a request for recognition, there was no need to
discuss Israel’s possible membership in the United Nations.
In short, Sharett sends a cable on May 17, which reaches New Delhi on
May 18. The following day, Israel’s envoy in Washington communicates
with the Indian embassy. On May 20, the prime minister refers to the Is-
raeli request in his letter to the chief ministers, and on May 21, the Indian
foreign offi ce prepares a note regarding Israel’s possible admission to the
United Nations. Thus Nehru’s statement to the Constituent Assembly of
having received a request in June was a mix- up.
Awaiting the Indian move, Israeli missions in diff erent parts of the
world regularly sent offi cial circulars and reports to their Indian counter-
parts. Because of the obvious diplomatic implications, the latter did not
know how to respond. Thus in April 1949, the Indian embassy in Prague
sought clarifi cations from New Delhi:
This embassy has been receiving many such letters [from the Israeli
Legation in Prague] from time to time. We shall be pleased to know
what our attitude should be in such cases. So far, we have not ac-
knowledged or replied to any communication from the Legation of
Israel, nor has the Ambassador returned the cards of the Minister.
The situation is not without its diffi culties as almost every other for-
eign establishment here, apart from Egypt, is in offi cial relations with
the Legation, these countries having accorded recognition to...
Israel. What we wish to know is whether our acknowledging such
communications or accepting calls or invitations from the Mission
will be tantamount to any recognition.^9The ministry responded by saying that under international law “recogni-
tion would be implied in acts like acknowledging communications, ac-
cepting calls or invitations etc., from a diplomatic representative of Is-
rael.” Because India had not granted recognition, it instructed the Prague
mission that “all such communications should be quietly ignored.”^10
Similar queries soon poured in from other Indian missions. On May 28,
Foreign Secretary K. P. S. Menon issued a clarifi cation to all Indian mis-
sions abroad. Declaring that India had “so far scrupulously avoided rec-
ognizing” Israel, he conceded that Israel’s recent admission to the United
Nations had “altered” the situation and that the question of recognition