Why did they do it, the Californians? It’s not just the Indian media that is asking questions. The American media is asking them too. Clearly, Californians are not about to be left alone to come to terms with the The Day After they elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor. Yes, California is different, everyone says. A one-party state with a reputedly lousy government and ballot initiatives that have proliferated so rapidly as to make direct democracy zealots cringe. Yes, the campaign looked more like a circus. But, you know, it’s really no joke. ‘‘This election is taking place in the most dynamic part of the world’s powerful country’’, the ECONOMIST in Britain alerted the world before the first vote was cast. ‘California Insurrection Puts Other Politicians on Notice’ declared the NEW YORK TIMES. Is it the Angry Voter? The Classic Outsider? Just a Diverting Candidate? Was it mass escapism in California? Did Maria Shriver make the difference, supportive and pretty by Arnold’s side after groping allegations by 15 women in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, gathering him under the umbrella of the Kennedy name? In the GUARDIAN, Duncan Campbell searched for answers in a small book Arthur Miller wrote partly in response to the 2000 US presidential election. It is titled On Politics and the Art of Acting and, marvelled Campbell, it is even more appropriate for the Californian poll. Writes Miller: ‘‘When one is surrounded by such a roiling mass of consciously contrived performances, it gets harder and harder for a lot of people to locate reality any more’’. Amid the analysis and the babble, one thing was clear. Arnie’s famous victory had given everyone pause. Britain’s FINANCIAL TIMES saw in it a trend in western democracies, from the US to France and the Netherlands: the triumph of a populist over an incumbent. In the UAE, amid its preoccupation with the Arab Media Summit just held in Dubai and dominated by Iraq, the GULF NEWS took time out to gently comment ‘‘It is difficult to conjure up the words Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger without at least a smile’’. But the GUARDIAN continued to fume: ‘‘Mr Schwarzenegger claims to respect women. That feeling may not be entirely reciprocated. He will have to watch his step and his hands.’’ Kafkaesque FOR women upset that even Gropegate didn’t deter the California voter, famous NYT columnist Maureen Dowd pointed to small consolation in Washington. ‘‘Women who are discouraged at the ascension of Conan the Barbarian in Cal-ee-fornia can take heart. In this delicious gender bender, Condoleezza Rice triumphs as the macho infighter, driving Rummy into a diva-like meltdown’’. She was referring, of course, to the tug of war that has noisily, publicly broken out over control of the Iraq policy within the Bush ‘dream team’. It’s Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld versus National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, ever since the ‘Iraq Stabilisation Group’ was created. The group is seen as a bid to transfer power for postwar Iraq from the Pentagon to the White House. It is, said the NYT, more like an attempt to substitute title-building for nation-building. These are days of furious embarrassments for the Bush administration over Iraq. ‘‘One morning, George Bush woke up from uneasy dreams to find himself transformed into a giant insect. Well, metaphorically’’ wrote the ECONOMIST. Kafka has caught up with the US president. Musharraf, again THE ECONOMIST was seeing Pervez Musharraf in a new light after Al-Qaeda called for his overthrow in a taped message on Al Jazeera. It counted out the ways in which Musharraf has been ‘invaluable ally’ to the US. It thought that his ‘‘words abroad are matched by action at home’’. TIME also looked at Musharraf again and bumped against the same question: ‘‘Is Pakistan serious?’’ It dismissed the recent success scored by the Pakistani army in the South Waziristan district where eight suspected militants were killed. Pakistan, it said, has made a habit of announcing dramatic anti-terror moves to coincide with high-level meetings with US officials. At the time of the raid, Jamali was meeting Bush in Washington and Richard Armitage was preparing to go to Islamabad. Pearl in France The story that runs through India ends up as a bestseller in an unlikely place. In France, a book that unravels the mystery surrounding the murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl has been declared a huge hit. Much of the extraordinary success of Qui a Tue Daniel Pearl? has to do with the persona of its author, Bernard-Henri Levy, said to be France’s most celebrated intellectual. The GUARDIAN took the opportunity to profile the writer-philosopher with a playboy’s lifestyle. The signature outfit of black suit and white shirt, unbuttoned halfway between navel and throat. The wife said to be one of the world’s most beautiful women. Palatial residences. To tell Daniel Pearl’s story, he appears to have invented a new genre: the romanquete. Part fiction, part journalism, part police-work, in which Levy himself is present at every step. And his argument is: western obsession with Iraq is misguided. The growth of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, particularly in Pakistan, presents a greater threat to global security. P.S: Surely a new world needs a new vocabulary. This week the GUARDIAN announced that the term ‘sex up’ has entered an Oxford mini-dictionary of words and phrases. The term was used by Andrew Gilligan in BBC’s Today programme to accuse the British government of exaggerating the threat from Iraq. It set off a scandal yet to subside in Britain. The book defines it as ‘‘to enhance something to give it greater appeal or impact.’’
