In the earlier part of the Conference, India's New Delhi's vocal support for the inclusion of the use of nuclear weapons as a war crime in the ICC Statute was viewed as welcome by its allies in the Non-Aligned camp, as well as many countries in Europe and the developing world.

But now, supporters among the European members of the group of "like-minded countries" consider them a "major roadblock" to smoother sailing toward a general agreement on a Statute for the ICC. Some of India's admirers and sympathisers in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) appeared to have joined the detractors' camp as well.

On Wednesday, the story being told in the corridoors was that some NAM states were calling into question the "unanimous" decision of that group Tuesday evening to insist on the inclusion of the use of nuclear weapons as crime under the ICC's jurisdiction.

In fact, a few African delegates made no secret of their irritation at the NAM group taking decisions that were "far from pragmatic". Another group of delegates did not deny "a certain link" between that concern and a meeting of the African group that was convened on Wednesday.

Obviously not unaware of the discomfort rising within NAM, the Indian delegation forwarded its amendment on the issue of nuclear weapons, shortly before the NAM group met Tuesday evening.  The group was informed when it took up the issue.

However, others earnestly hoped that India, being the world's most populous democracy, to use the jargon of the head of the U.S. delegation David Scheffer, would not be given the cold shoulder.  One way out could be to delete the individual listing of the "weapons...in violation of international humanitarian law" and instead include general reference to "weapons of mass destruction".

A refusal by the drafting committee to introduce that change, as a concession, may well force India to insist on an amendment in the Committee of the Whole. If that happens, New Delhi might be outvoted by a majority, leaving behind the impression of "cracks" among developing countries' positions. The Indian delegation would probably argue that this means majority of the nations at the Conference "do not regard the use of nuclear weapons as a heinous crime" - though critics have called New Delhi's anti-nuclear weapons stance hypocritical given its own nuclear tests.

But there is another possibility, which might be a face-saving device for India: In a procedural wrangle that would bar introduction of amendments at this late stage, New Delhi might not get an opportunity to even bring up its proposal in the Committee or the Plenary, whichever might be considered the proper venue.