Since November 2016 the Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched his drive to eliminate role of the tax evaded money in public life. He undertook the drastic economic measures like demonetisation without caring for acute difficulties that large population had to undergo. Not only thousands of small units had to pull down their shutters to leave nearly a million unskilled men and women without jobs or future. It was followed by cancellation of licenses, not few but more than three lakh licenses believed to have been obtained by small business and manufacturing units through corrupt means.

Above all the Prime Minister missed no opportunity to hit out at the only opposition to his regime, the Indian National Congress as the most corrupt political entity that spread corruption of black wealth. The main theme of campaign in the Karnataka assembly polls was also the on emphasis to prove how corruption spread in five year rule by the Congress government. The Prime Minister presented and projected the prospects of arrival of clean politics, free from corruption under dispensation by Bharatiya Janata party. The electorate did not believe him and refused to give a clear mandate to his party. It ended up with 104 seats in the assembly with effective strength of222 members as elections for two seats were put off. The BJP is thus short of eight seats to form the requisite majority that could legally and constitutionally allow it to take the saddle.

The governor Vajubhai Vala followed the precedents from the Congress rule to invite the BJP leader Yeddyurappa known for his easy ways that cannot withstand moral scrutiny, to take over as the chief minister and prove that he enjoys confidence of the house. As similar principles were followed earlier by the Congress men occupying the highest office in the land, no one could take objection. Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma had followed the precedent set up by his predecessor in the Rashtrapati Bhavan to invite Atal Behari Vajpayee to form the government in May 1996. No party had clear mandate. Even though Atal Behari Vajpayee emerged as leader of the single largest party, he was still short by hundred seats in forming the requisite majority.

He had ventured to form the government under the belief that he would be able to persuade other parties to support his government. The man of principles, he did not attempt to indulge in horse trading to break any party by luring away i8ndivdu8al members. His stand was clear either support him for what he was or not but he would not compromise on the basics of the electoral verdict. No party came forward and he resigned rather than add political humiliation of his defeat. No one expects Yeddyurappa to rise to the principled stature and actions of Vajpayee. Talks of some new legislators promising him support are already in air. Behind the back bargaining is no doubt going on.

The governor also came in for criticism that he did not take into consideration the joint statement by two parties commanding strength of 116 members, five more than requisite majority to form the government. If the possibility of horse trading was the cause of shudders passing down the spine of the proclaimed moralists why did they justify the claim of two parties to form the government as it was a pure deal on large scales? It did not need individual horse trading as entire stable had walked in for consideration. Both the parties had contested independently and on their own agenda. They had candidates opposing each other.

Yet as soon as the results came they rushed to hold hands of each other with the Congress conceding the post of the chief minister to the junior partner. Is that not a horse trading on a whole sale scale? The governor was not motivated by h=the high moral principles in extending invitation for form the government but acted in mundane consideration of interests of the party where he spent his entire life.

But for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi the test of his drive for elimination of corruption is in ensuring that his party did not indulge in luring outsiders so that the party government could survive in holding the reins of power. Here is the occasion to prove that his drive to end corruption in public life. He would not allow his party to indulge in survival game. Instead he would ask his party man to resign and wait for future developments including possibility of fresh election.

If he concedes the game for survival of the party government in office through lured votes, then he will need to end all his talk of corruption of other parties. He would not be able to claim that he was different from his predecessors. But can he ensure that his party men did not indulge in below the table kind of deal?

The issue is whether he would continue to ride high horse of moral politics and present himself as such to face the electorate in the Lok Sabha election or get off his high horse to allow the party man to ride the power horse in Karnataka? Thus acid test is not only for survival of morality in politics but also of his survival in office.