It isn't very long after arriving in the big city that Balram realizes just how corrupt and rotten to the core public life in India really is. He soon discovers that the rich live by their own rules, able to do largely as they please. Their continued ascendancy is maintained by a political system riddled with graft and corruption, which the likes of Ashok and his family exploit to their advantage.

In such a toxic social environment, poor people like Balram don't stand a chance. It's virtually impossible for him to move up the social ladder. Even working for a rich, privileged family like Ashok's confers no real benefits upon him. In fact, it has its own dangers, as one can see when Balram is expected to take the rap when Ashok's wife, Pinky Madam, knocks down and kills a child while driving under the influence.

If Balram doesn't take the rap, there's every danger he'll be set up for the crime in any case— such are the levels of police corruption in New Delhi. Under the circumstances then, Balram has no choice but to escape—and fast. And the only way he can do this, the only way he can escape the "Rooster Coop" of poverty and exploitation, is by killing Ashok.

Aravind Adiga's novel paints a dark picture of India's class struggle in a globalized world. Through the eyes of Balram, the reader can sense the unbridgeable chasm that exists between the elite and the impoverished.

Balram Halwai is the perfect slave to his master. In Ashok's constant company, he gets to peer into the lives of the rich and the famous. His own life, however, remains consigned to the murky depths of Delhi's underbelly. Ashok's wife kills a child in a drunk driving accident. The couple persuades Balram to take responsibility for the act. Instead of becoming a victim of his selfish, corrupt, and callous master's conspiracy, Balram decides to become the perpetrator. He smashes the skull of his employer and steals a large bag of money.

Balram observes that neither Pinky nor Ashok regrets the unfortunate accident. He does not see the necessity to repent the murder either. He justifies the killing as an existential act.

The answer to this question is likely going to differ from reader to reader. While there could be many possible reasons, I think two possible reasons stand out. The first reason is based on the following quote:

All I wanted was the chance to be a man—and for that, one murder was enough.

This quote comes from Balram as he thinks about his past and the murder. This quote suggests that Balram's motivation was based on his desire to fight against a societal oppression that prevented him from being a man. In his eyes, being a man meant having the freedom to pursue certain dreams of his. Ashok was in the way of Balram becoming a man, so Balram killed him. The ends justifies the means in this case.

I think another possible reason for Balram killing Ashok is greed. Balram has been witness to Ashok's corrupt dealings, and Balram sees how wealthy a man Ashok is. Balram realizes that if he kills Ashok, he can take the bag of bribery money and become a fairly wealthy individual in a fairly short amount of time. This is the reason that I would support. I think the justification that Balram himself gives for the murder (which I have mentioned in the previous paragraph) is Balram trying to rationalize his actions with something that sounds somewhat "worthy."

In recalling his history, Belram thinks about his murder of Mr. Ashok, who was his master at the time. Belram had been forced to become a driver because of poverty, and while he appreciated the work that Ashok gave to him, he was also resentful of his social class and wanted to be free. As the novel progresses, the corruption of government and law enforcement grows stronger, and Belram realizes that he cannot get ahead without becoming corrupted himself. He does not rationalize it beyond that, however, and does not lie to himself about the evil of his deed. To escape the crimes of Ashok and his father, Stork, Belram kills Ashok, robs him, and starts his own business.

Kill enough people and they will put up bronze statures to you near Parliament House in Helhi -- but that is glory, and not what I am after. All I wanted was the chance to be a man -- and for that, one murder was enough.
(Adiga, The White Tiger, Google Books)

His reason for the killing was to escape the crimes of the area, but at the end of the novel he discovers that he is responsible for many of the same crimes as the people he has fled; also, it is likely that his family was killed in revenge. Belram accepts this as a given, and decides that the extra deaths he has caused are acceptable since he has won his freedom, and now no man is his master.

In The White Tiger, is Balram justified in killing Ashok?

This is an interesting question. Balram sees killing Ashok as his way to escape poverty. Balram was born into what he refers to as the "rooster coop," or the chaos, corruption, and poverty in which most people in India live—save the few very elite members of society. He believes that, given the lowly caste into which he was born, he has no chance to succeed honestly. For example, he is not able to get a good education, and he works as a chauffeur for Ashok and his beautiful wife, Pinky Madam.

Viewed in this way, it might seem justified for Balram to kill Ashok to gain his master's privileges and seize the opportunity for a better life—an opportunity that he will likely never be able to access any other way. However, Ashok is personally somewhat sympathetic to Balram. Ashok is troubled by the corruption and evil ways he sees in the elite of India, and he is morally superior to his other family members. He is also very hurt when his wife, Pinky Madam, leaves him. Therefore, Ashok is a character who is deserving of some compassion and sympathy. In addition, by killing Ashok, Balram is perpetuating the same type of cruelty and evil he has hated in the rich of India.

In The White Tiger, is Balram justified in killing Ashok?

Balram's narration of his life story is inter alia an act of self-justification. According to his own account, his justification for killing Ashok is threefold. First, Ashok is a corrupt, violent, and thoroughly unpleasant character who is certainly no great loss to the world. Second, Ashok has behaved badly to Balram personally, and the murder is his revenge. Third, Balram is desperate to escape from his origins and attain true freedom, and killing Ashok seems to be his only way of achieving this. In a Man Booker Prize interview (attached below), Aravind Adiga has talked about The White Tiger as the story of a man's quest for freedom.

So is Balram justified in committing murder? The answer depends entirely on what moral perspective you bring to the question. Many people will think not, condemning all murder, perhaps even all killing, as immoral. According to Balram's own moral compass, however, he is justified for the three reasons mentioned above. His origin in low-caste poverty means that "the world is not his friend nor the world's law," and his success in life is sufficient justification for his actions.

In The White Tiger, is Balram justified in killing Ashok?

Certainly, murder is never justified. As the other educator pointed out, Balram did not kill as an act of self-defense, nor did he kill Ashok to protect anyone. For his part, Balram was solely motivated by his desire for revenge.

Having said this, Ashok was no angel. In fact, his behavior was often repulsive and his actions abhorrent. It was Ashok who let Balram take the blame for Pinky Madam's actions. In the story, Pinky Madam ran over a child while driving intoxicated. Instead of stopping to see to the plight of the child, Ashok conspired with Balram to leave the scene of the accident. When Pinky Madam protested, Ashok gagged his wife to keep her quiet.

At their home, Ashok dragged Pinky Madam upstairs, with a scarf still tied to her mouth. Later, Ashok made Balram sign a statement identifying him as the sole party responsible for killing the child. Despite his seething anger, Balram had to keep his emotions under check. He maintained that the jails of Delhi were full of drivers behind bars because they were "taking the blame for their good, solid middle-class masters." A poor man could leave the villages, but the masters of the Coop still owned them "body, soul, and arse."

Balram was further incensed by the fact that his own grandmother supported the prospect of his incarceration. In India, it is a matter of pride for impoverished families to support the sacrifices their sons and daughters make for their masters. Even the judges take bribes for choosing to ignore the real facts about each case. The one left holding the bag, of course, is the driver himself. This state of affairs is what leads Balram to contemplate killing Ashok (and to finally go through with it).

Since men like Balram have no recourse to justice, they resort to administering their own brand of equity. Balram's actions (and also Ashok's) demonstrate the impact of corruption on both the rich and poor.

In The White Tiger, is Balram justified in killing Ashok?

No, in my opinion Balram is not justified in killing Ashok.  There is no doubt that Ashok is a "bad guy."  He's an abusive drunk through much of the story.  He's an incredibly selfish individual as well.  He's wealthy enough to have two private drivers, but when Ashok takes Balram to Dehli, Balram is forced to live in a cockroach infested apartment, while Ashok and his wife live in splendor.  

At one point in the story, Ashok beats Balram for taking his wife to the airport without his knowledge.  Ashok also likely has ties to organized crime which is indicated by the bag of money he's always carrying around to use to bribe public officials.  Ashok is a selfish and corrupt businessman more or less.  

I might feel differently about Balram's justification of killing Ashok, if Balram had done it out of self defense or had done it to protect someone else.  I just don't get that feeling.  Balram lured Ashok from the car and killed him with a bottle.  Ashok then took the money and used it to set up his own business AND begin bribing officials to ensure the success of his new business.  I don't see Balram being much different from Ashok.  It's simply a substitution of one corrupt businessman for another.