The website, The Guardian, pondered this question. India is probably one of the places where the difference between the have and nots significantly dwarves that of the United States. Khan's May conviction of hit and run in 2002 was seen by some as a step in the right direction, that it didn't matter whether you were rich or poor. Justice in India was metered out the same. Does the acquittal of further diminish whatever faith might have been left in the Indian justice system?
The Guardian held to the idea that, "the original judgement in May was hailed as a crucial sign of accountability in a legal system that has sometimes appeared to set different standards for those with wealth, power and connections. "
Although it was seen as a step forward, Salman Khan's legions of fans didn't think so. Achieving near mythic status in his homeland of India, fans gathered outside of Khan's. According to the Guardian, "Khan has been since his debut in 1989's Maine Pyar Kiya (I've Fallen in Love), starring in more than 80 films and TV shows, including four of the top 10 highest grossing Indian films of all time. Up to 2.5bn rupees worth of film production is currently riding on him, with producers gambling on his star power despite a string of controversies."
A sort of godlike mentality, to sum up the Guardian's point of view, is at the root of the problem. Salman Khan can't be wrong and is pretty much infallible because, well, he's Salman Khan and he's very rich. Money equals righteousness. No further is that evident, in the Guardian's view, than when blame was shifted from Khan to his driver some thirteen years later. Even Ashok Singh's wife bought into the benevolence of Salman Khan, or his money, over that of her his husband's freedom and or well being, from the Guardian,, "If he [her husband] is the culprit then he should be ready for the punishment also," she said. "And we know Salman will never leave our side."
