Christopher Hitchens is saying nothing. What does he say we need? "Firm, warm solidarity." About what does he complain? "Anemic and insipid" statements from politicians. What action, what policy, does he advocate, that is some matter of controversy or disagreement? None. None at all. Except, that is, perhaps changing the name Mumbai back to Bombay, a purely symbolic and entirely trivial notion that has nothing to do with helping the Indian people and everything to do with continuing to build the brand of Christopher Hitchens. This is the worst kind of self-aggrandizement, the kind that reduces real human suffering to just more fuel for self-righteousness and pomposity. What does Hitchens want us to know? That he is more moral and strident and serious than any of us. What does he want us to do, that we don't all already agree on doing? Nothing at all.

Freddie is reading nothing:

"In response, it should be emphasized, our military and financial and nuclear and counterinsurgency cooperation with New Delhi will not be given a lower profile but a very much higher one."

Not an action?! Or do you simply disagree with such action?

Fred, he is just pointing out the importance of India as an ally, and to suggest that we take their pains seriously. The stuff about "Mumbai" vs "Bombay" is just a way to point out that some in power in India are hyper-religious. (He is famously hateful of religion, so he'll find a way to get to his favorite subject in most every article.)

I don't see any intent to reduce human suffering, be self righteous or pompous, or anything else. He's saying "let's stick together." He's saying, "We are all Indians." It's about solidarity.

He is saying a lot more than anyone else, laying down the cards and telling it how it is, not mumbo jumbo jargon masking the situation. Great article.