Why India waited two years before recognising Israel

In June 1948, Jawaharlal Nehru received a telegram from Moshe Shertok, foreign minister of the provisional government of Israel, requesting India to recognise the Jewish state. The Indian government, which had voted against the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine that led to the creation of Israel, chose to “defer consideration” of Shertok’s request.

At a meeting of the Constituent Assembly in August 1948, Nehru reiterated the policy adopted by India, then still a British dominion.

“We have maintained that Palestine should be independent and free from the control of any single power; that no solution can be lasting unless it is based on the consent of both Arabs and Jews; and no lasting solution is possible which is imposed and maintained by force,” Nehru said in response to a question to the assembly.

He outlined India’s preferred solution: “A Federated State with the largest possible autonomy to respected regions where the Jews and Arabs are in majority, with a Governor who should administer such common subjects as Defence, External Relations, Customs and perhaps Immigration, with the consent of the representatives of both – such a solution, we feel, would be just satisfactory to both the communities.”

Nehru explained he had not even acknowledged Shertock’s telegram as doing so could have been construed as de facto recognition of Israel.

Simultaneously, India resisted calls to intervene on behalf of Arab nations. When Egypt requested small arms, Nehru declined. “The Government of India have strictly adhered to a policy of neutrality and observance of the letter and spirit of the [United Nations] Security Council Truce Resolution, which forbids member nations from aiding the interested powers in the conflict in Palestine.”

During the Assembly debate, Begum Aizaz Rasul, the only Muslim woman member, asked Nehru whether the “wishes and sentiments” of a “large number of people living in the Indian Dominion” were being taken into consideration. The prime minister replied that the government had to “keep in mind all the factors governing a particular situation”.

Another member, Mahavir Tyagi, asked whether Nehru was aware of statements by the Indian ambassador in Egypt declaring that the government’s sympathies lay with the Arabs. Nehru agreed that both the Indian people and the government had largely supported the Arabs. However, he added that apart from Palestine, India’s sympathies had also been with the Jews “because of the terrible persecutions” they had endured.

“But considering the particular issue in Palestine, it is an exceedingly delicate issue now and has to be considered, apart from sympathies etc., and the government has to take every single factor into consideration – international and national – before taking any step,” Nehru said.

Israeli outreach

Over the next year, pressure mounted on India from various quarters to take a firm position on recognising Israel.

Around the time the Constituent Assembly was debating the issue, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Eliahu Epstein, approached the Indian embassy in Washington seeking permission to send a goodwill delegation to India.

Epstein informed Indian Ambassador Benegal Rama Rau that Israel wished to send a professor from the Hebrew University, a scientist from the Weizmann Institute, the agriculture minister, a representative of the commerce department and a journalist. “The object is stated to be the establishment of Cultural, Economic and Social Relations,” Rau wrote in a telegram to the Ministry of External and Commonwealth Relations, now the Ministry of External Affairs.

The request followed an earlier approach by the Hebrew University to Nehru proposing cultural exchanges and the exchange of professors.

Rau responded that India was too preoccupied with internal economic and political challenges to host such a visit. “For your personal information it may be stated that since we have not (repeat not) accorded recognition to the Government of Israel, it would be difficult to receive any kind of mission from Israel,” he added in the telegram.

‘Embarrassing’ situation

Declassified documents in the Indian National Archives reveal that Israeli officials frequently approached Indian diplomats at receptions in third countries, casually raising the question of recognition. This prompted several Indian diplomats to seek guidance from Foreign Secretary KPS Menon.

In a February 1950 letter to Rup Chand, India’s ambassador in Kabul, Menon wrote that “social courtesy” was “independent of de jure recognition of a government” and that personal-level interactions were acceptable.

Menon understood that India was walking a diplomatic tightrope. New Delhi wished to maintain warm ties with the Arab world and feared that Pakistan might exploit the situation if India moved ahead with the recognition of the Jewish state.

Nevertheless, Menon considered the situation “both anomalous and embarrassing”. “Israel has not only been recognized by a great many governments, including the government of one Muslim country, namely Turkey, but it is also a member of the United Nations,” he noted. The latter fact, he argued, made non-recognition anomalous since the two countries’ delegations inevitably interacted at the UN.

“We have, however, not extended de jure recognition to Israel so far, since we do not wish to do anything which might come in the way of a suitable agreement between the Arab countries and Israel,” Menon wrote. India was also anxious not to do anything that “would hurt the feelings” of the Arab world.

The foreign secretary concluded that a “firm decision” would eventually have to be taken, adding that recognition by other countries “in close sympathy with the Arab point of view” might ease India’s path.

“Recognition does not in any way imply approval of all the policies or actions of a government,” Menon observed.

Arab disunity

While Israel pressed for recognition, countries such as Egypt urged India to refrain.

In a conversation with King Farouk, India’s ambassador in Cairo, Asaf Ali Asghar Fyzee, called for engagement between the Arab world and Israel. “I suggested that as it was not possible to make war with Israel, or fight economically against her, it was probably better to come to some arrangement with her,” Fyzee wrote to Menon. The Egyptian king rejected the idea outright.

Fyzee sensed an opening in late April when Jordan annexed the Palestinian territory now known as the West Bank, triggering divisions within the Arab League. Iran’s recognition of Israel in March 1950 further weakened Muslim unity on the issue.

“In the present circumstances the solidarity of the League is gone and this seems least unfavourable opportunity to recognise Israel,” he wrote. “First the Arab League states are so preoccupied with their affairs that recognition may not be noticed prominently. Second our relations with Pakistan have improved and there will be no violent propaganda by them against us.”

At the same time, he cautioned that countries such as Syria and Egypt would regard recognition as an unfriendly act at a delicate moment. Repercussions among Muslims in India and Pakistan would also need consideration.

Following suit

While opposition to Israel was strong in India, some voices did support recognition and diplomatic ties.

Abraham Barak Salem, an advocate and freedom fighter from Cochin known as the “Jewish Gandhi”, sent a memorandum to President Rajendra Prasad urging the establishment of diplomatic relations and offering to serve as “India’s Representative” in Israel.

“As one who loves the world, Israel and India, I desire to be the link between India and Israel as India’s Representative to work for bringing the infusion of desirable ideas to either countries wherein Aryan and Semitic ideas may be synthesised,” Salem wrote.

His earlier appeal to Nehru in 1949 had gone unanswered. The memorandum to Prasad was forwarded to Menon, who chose not to act on it.

But, as more countries formally recognised Israel, India ultimately decided to follow suit. “The Government of India has decided to accord recognition to the Government of Israel,” the Ministry of External Affairs announced in a one-line press release dated September 17, 1950.

That same day, the foreign ministry sent a note to Indian missions in Cairo, Baghdad, Djakarta, Rangoon and New York explaining the decision.

“There is every evidence that state of Israel has come to stay and the recognition of its Government, therefore, like the recognition of Communist China, is only the acceptance of an established fact – a fact which, it should be stressed, over 40 nations including two leading Muslim countries Turkey and Iran – have accepted,” the ministry wrote.

Missions were instructed to emphasise that India had taken two years to arrive at the decision, reflecting “very careful consideration” of all aspects.

India and Israel had already been working “side by side” at the United Nations, the ministry’s note said, and were “striving to make their contribution to furthering the aims of peace and establishing better social and economic conditions in all parts of the world”. The ministry also suggested that recognition might enhance India’s effectiveness as a potential intermediary between Israel and the Arab states.

Divided reaction

Although the note reaffirmed that “India will always value Egypt’s friendship and the friendship of other Arab countries”, New Delhi remained concerned about Cairo’s reaction.

“Recognition of Israel was reported without comment by the Egyptian press,” Fyzee wrote in a telegram to Menon. “Unexpected silence seems due to official hint NOT to disturb happy relations with India and thereby lose India’s support in refugee and other questions.”

The government received both praise and disappointment from private citizens in West Asia.

Hawa Diris, an Egyptian women’s delegate to the 1947 Indian National Congress session, reminded Nehru in a telegram that he had once said Palestine would remain an Arab state. Expressing disappointment, she said she hoped recognition would not materialise.

In contrast, Poland-born Jewish Sanskrit scholar Olshvanger Emanuel wrote to Nehru describing recognition as a “long-awaited holiday gift”, arriving on the eve of the Day of Atonement. “To me it is the realisation of a long-cherished dream to see a bridge uniting the holy waters of the Jordan and the sacred waves of the Ganges,” Emanuel wrote.

Full diplomatic ties between India and Israel came only in 1992, long after the questions first raised in 1948 had reshaped the contours of India’s foreign policy.

Ajay Kamalakaran is a writer, primarily based in Mumbai. His latest book, Colombo: Port of Call, has been published by Penguin Random House.