By the time this column is read, the outcome of the five assembly elections would have become clear. Determining why lakhs of people voted as they did is an impossible task in aggregation. In these elections, some voted out of community solidarity, others on the strength of political calculations that ranged from anger and hate to expectation, and still others for reasons that were intensely personal - as personal as, say, someone's preference for Shah Rukh Khan over Salman Khan. Democratic politics rests on collective choice. Yet what determines the preference of the many is a hotchpotch of individual impulses that analysts reduce to a statistic.The mood in the Central Hall of Parliament last Thursday was expectant. Without exit polls to hang their predictions on, MPs banked entirely on feedback from their party colleagues. These ranged from predictions of an outright sweep for the BJP (except in Punjab), to anticipatory glee over the taming of Narendra Modi . Frankly , no one re ally knew the outcome - an uncertainty that augurs well for Indian democracy.Yet, there was an unexpected measure of agreement on one point.In the winter session that was disrupted by boisterous protests over demonetisation, the ruling party had been threatened by taunts of imminent voter retribution. As MP after opposition MP narrated tales of hardships suffered by the many and spoke of economic devastation caused by a measure that lacked the endorsement of 'eminent' economists, the assembly elections, it was believed, would be a referendum on demonetisation. In Kolkata, Mamata Banerjee had plastered the city with billboards proclaiming 'Modi hatao, desh bachao'; and in Parliament, the otherwise taciturn former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the demonetisation as “organised loot and legalised plunder of the common people". From Harvard, Amartya Sen compared the move to Napoleon's monumental Russian misadventure.In the Central Hall last week, however, there was a deafening silence over demonetisation. A move by the government that had affected every Indian in one way or another had abruptly ceased to be the talking point in the campaign. The only exception seemed to be Punjab where notebandi had blended with fierce anti-incumbency sentiment. Even many BJP functionaries in the districts, while gushing over the PM's indefatigable energy and Amit Shah's shrewdness, weren't very forthcoming over demonetisation. It's not that they were embarrassed by it, just that they couldn't quite decipher the people's reaction. Anger is easy to comprehend and India's voters have never been shy in being demonstrative about displeasure with politicians. The problem lay in reconciling trader dissatisfaction (an important consideration in the BJP's ecosystem) and media reports of widespread dislocation, with the near-total absence of social unrest. There was some bewilderment that many of those in the long queues before banks took selfies while flashing a V-sign.The assembly elections may not resolve questions over the economic consequences of demonetisation, but they will put a lid on the debate over its popular acceptance. From all indications, demonetisastion has not affected the BJP's prospects adversely. On the contrary, it has enhanced, Modi's personal stature and made the party more acceptable to underprivileged voters. The BJP core was always middle class - a category that extends beyond income levels and covers attitudes and aspirations. After notebandi, the party's centre of gravity has shifted a little down the economic ladder.Most Indians have not gained directly from demonetisation. The benefits are still in the future. A small minority has, however, been adversely affected by being exposed to the tax net. Those who were directly hit have protested loudly while those who were merely inconvenienced have chosen the path of resilience.Anecdotal evidence suggests that in shaping public perception there was a moral quotient at work. The age-old belief that the path of goodness lies through sacrifice has been infrequently tested in the political realm. Mahatma Gandhi was unique among politicians in linking the quest for freedom with personal suffering and sacrifice. For him, freedom also involved the penances linked with tapasya.This idea of personal sacrifice for the larger national good has been lost in the mad rush for entitlements, a form of politics that happily coexisted with venality and corruption. Modi appears to have restored it to the political centre stage and given Indians a personal role in making India better. The message of moral cleansing that underpinned demonetisation was readily accepted because the man behind the move had established a reputation for pressing for the larger good. The call to sacrifice resonated because there was harmony between the man and his message.