India was among the 128 countries that voted at the United Nations to declare U.S. President Donald Trump's declaration of Jerusalem as Israel's capital "null and void."
That can be described as the correct and uncomplicated decision for the Indian government. Had New Delhi voted any other way, it would have undermined its international standing.
India has struggled of late to strike a balance in its relationship with Palestine and Israel for various reasons. Most telling, though, is its inability to articulate a public policy on Jerusalem.
Trump on Dec. 6 overturned decades-old U.S. policy by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The U.S. administration could not bother that its move contravened international laws that the city was under the Jewish state's illegal occupation and its final status was to be determined in a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement.
Reacting to it, because people asked questions, India made a 23-word, tormented statement, which left many wondering what it meant.
The External Affairs Ministry said: "India's position on Palestine is independent and consistent. It is shaped by our views and interests, and not determined by any third country."
India for decades used to be a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, but has tried to take an apparent dispassionate approach toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, having established formal diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992.
However, its Jerusalem statement was seen a shift from its stated balanced approach and more in line with its growing closeness with Washington.
"India does not want to take a clear-cut position. There is a sort of policy paralysis, but the undercurrent is the warming of India's relations with Israel and the U.S.," Aftab Kamal Pasha, a professor of West Asian studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), said about the ministry's statement.
But others saw a balancing act in those 23 words.
Kabir Taneja, a West Asia expert at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) think tank, said that New Delhi did not have to take a strong position on a matter of American policy. "India has good relations with both Israel and the Palestinians. It is a balancing act. India has its own approach [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]," Taneja said.
Many factors have led to a gradual dilution of Indian support for Palestine. Much before the formal diplomatic relations were established between India and Israel 25 years ago, a furtive alliance had begun to flourish.
New Delhi today enjoys strong bilateral ties with Tel Aviv and is a big buyer of Israeli weapons and technology. Nevertheless, the Indian government tries to send a public message of parity in its dealings with both the Israelis and Palestinians.
Before Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel in July, India invited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for a state visit to emphasize its "historically close and friendly ties" with Palestine.
As the Palestinians lack any leverage over Indo-Israeli relations, they will have to be content with Indian goodwill.
"The Palestinians are not as important. They have no bargaining power to influence India's Israel policy," said Mirza Asmer Beg, a professor of political science at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
The Oslo Accords of 1993 between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel, the 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, and some Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, developing clandestine contacts with Israel have weakened Palestinians internationally.
This situation in the 1990s and 2000s helped India's successive governments pursue their interests in West Asia more confidently. The current Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government sees India's relations with Israel in more geo-strategic terms. There is a powerful right-wing lobby that insists on Israel being India's "natural and strategic" ally. Israel cultivates such groups of serving and retired bureaucrats, journalists, trade bodies and politicians for a wider political agenda.
On the other hand, there is erosion in popular pro-Palestinian sentiment in the country due to the prevalence of a pro-Israeli narrative in the media.
"The Palestinian issue used it to be a political tool for India in the 1970s and 1980s. The issue does not resonate with people as much now," ORF's Taneja said.
India's response to the Trump move was clearly a reflection of the contemporary political reality as India is closely aligned with Tel Aviv and Washington.
"[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is coming next month [January]. India does not want to rock the boat either with Israel or the Americans with a controversy. This partially explains the non-statement," JNU's Pasha said.
Perhaps India realized later that Jerusalem is a much bigger issue than Trump's attempt to make it a U.S. State Department bureaucratic matter. According to a news report, a group of Arab ambassadors had sought a clarification from the Indian government.
India's statement did not do justice to its historical role as a supporter of Palestine, said Beg, the AMU professor. "We were not as powerful economically and militarily before but enjoyed a leadership position on international issues because of soft power. What's lacking today is that high moral ground," he added. "India should have been categorical on such a major issue. Even traditional U.S. allies have criticized Trump's decision," Beg said.
India's voting pattern on Palestinian-Israeli issues at international forums and pronouncements in recent years suggest a policy shift of appearing more neutral. Most notably, India abstained from the U.N. Human Rights Council votes in 2015 and 2016 that called for a war crimes probe against Israel for its offensive in Gaza in 2104.
"We have been diluting our policy towards Palestine of a long time with wobbly statements," Pasha said.
The U.S. policy change challenges Palestinian aspirations to attain statehood with East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel in 1967, as their capital.
Jerusalem had been under the Ottoman rule since 1517, before the British captured it in 1917, the year then British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour made his infamous declaration promising to the Zionist movement a Jewish national home in Palestine.
Trump is being compared to Balfour for promising Israel what does not belong to the U.S. Some see the dramatic U.S. policy shift as driven by Trump's campaign promise to his radical, Evangelical Christian base.
Abbas told the extraordinary meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul on Dec. 13 that Trump flouted international law and described the U.S. leader's Jerusalem decision as "the greatest crime."
The OIC declared East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine under occupation and told the U.S. to withdraw from the peace process because it could not qualify as an honest broker.
With the furor over Jerusalem growing, India may be forced to better articulate its position.
* India-based journalist