What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Scroll Staff’s December 10, 2015 essay, “Why 2015 has been the Year of Salman,” argued that Salman Khan was at the peak of his career that year. Its case rested on three things: the Indian box-office collections of his two 2015 releases, his mass appeal as a star, and the Bombay High Court acquittal reported just before publication. Read today, the essay is a snapshot of one year’s commercial and public standing, not a current account of Khan’s career or legal position.
The argument in brief
The essay makes a commercial claim, a star-power claim, and a timing claim. The commercial claim is the strongest and the easiest to check against reported figures. The star-power and image claims are the author’s interpretation. The legal development is the article’s background context, placed at the moment of publication.
The two films and their reported collections
The article uses two releases as its main evidence: Bajrangi Bhaijaan and Prem Ratan Dhan Payo. It reports Indian collections of over Rs 300 crore for the first and over Rs 200 crore for the second.
| Film (2015 release) | Reported Indian collections | Source and date | Status of the figure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bajrangi Bhaijaan | Over Rs 300 crore | Scroll Staff, December 10, 2015 | Reported in the essay as of publication; not updated |
| Prem Ratan Dhan Payo | Over Rs 200 crore | Scroll Staff, December 10, 2015 | Reported in the essay as of publication; not updated |
Both figures are the essay’s own reported numbers. The article does not name a separate box-office tracker as their original publisher, and the final lifetime grosses have not been independently checked for this piece. If you cite them, attribute them to the 2015 essay and say they were reported at that time.
#1 Best Overall
What the essay means by “the Year of Salman”
The phrase describes a year in which two major releases from one lead actor were both commercially large. The essay treats this as evidence of a star whose audience turns up for him rather than for a particular genre or role. That is a reasonable reading of two strong box-office results, but two films do not establish a multi-year pattern on their own, and the essay does not claim they do.
Star appeal and the “Bhai” persona
The essay contrasts an older tabloid image of Khan, which it associates with the 1990s, with a more popular “Bhai” persona linked to charity, physical strength, and mass-market cinema. It argues that audiences came to see Khan regardless of the character he played, and it compares his genre-resistant appeal to that of Rajinikanth.
These are the essay’s characterizations. They are not survey results, audience measurements, or independently verified findings, and they should be presented as the author’s view.
The court acquittal and its timing
The essay reports that the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan on the Thursday before its December 10 publication. It also notes that Maharashtra planned to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →That is the status as the essay describes it at publication. The source does not cover what happened in the appeal afterwards, and this article does not offer a chronology of later proceedings. For current legal status, consult recent reporting from a court or news source published after 2015.
How to use the essay today
- Separate facts from framing. Box-office figures and the acquittal are reported events. “Year of Salman,” the “Bhai” image, and the Rajinikanth comparison are interpretation.
- Keep the date attached. Every figure and legal status in the essay is as of December 2015.
- Attribute quotations carefully. The essay is staff-written commentary, not a statement from Khan, a court, or any official body. Do not present its prose as a direct quote from any of them.
- Look for later data before drawing a broader conclusion. Two films in one year show a strong year, not a career-long trend.
Questions a reader can ask of the claim
- Did both films perform as reported, and where do final figures come from?
- Does the star-appeal argument rest on anything beyond the two films?
- What changed in the legal matter after the essay was published?
The essay answers the first question only in part and the second mainly through interpretation. The third falls outside its scope.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
