Aside from the obvious lack of personal and public health care present in the Annawadi slum in Mumbai, the need for equality in law is shown in Boo’s report of Zehrunisa’s dealings with the Annawadi government. The corruption rampant throughout the government results from the social structure and unequal opportunities that they offer people from each caste. The social war between Hindus and Muslims casts all followers of Islam to the bottom of the social system, regardless of skills or traits they possess.

Penetrating the judicial system, Mumbai’s prominent religious prejudice denies its citizens the right to equality, such as is presented in Article 2 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. This Article reads, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” (UNDHR). However, this sentiment is not present in Annawadi; religion defines one’s social position and thus one’s judicial sentence if accused. When Zehrunisa’s son Abdul is taken to the Dongri Juvenile Detention Center, fellow Muslims surround him. Boo observes, “across India, Muslims were overrepresented in the criminal justice system” (127). The religious barrier destroys opportunities for Annawadi citizens such as the Husains and thus does not adhere to the rules of the Declaration of Human Rights.

While still being contained in the Annawadi police office before going to Dongri, Abdul critically analyzes the corruption permeating the government. Boo reports, “The Indian criminal justice system was a market like garbage, Abdul now understood. Innocence and guilt could be bought and sold like a kilo of polyurethane bags” (107). Zehrunisa agrees with her son, saying, “If it were our own village, with our own people, we might hope the witnesses would care for us and tell the truth. But we are so alone in this city” (110). That such bias exists even in the law of Annawadi reveals a major flaw in the governmental system. If all human beings are entitled to rights regardless of their social position or religion, Muslims like the Husain family should be given fair trials and have an equal opportunity to Hindu families.

The corruption of the governmental system allows officials to encourage the practice of bribery from people who are in trouble with the law. Abdul encounters this in Dongri, when he must undergo a medical examination to determine his age. The official demands a bribe outright to say that Abdul is seventeen and thus allowed to stay in Dongri rather than go to the harsh Arthur Road Jail. Boo reports, “Abdul was seventeen years old if he paid two thousand rupees, and twenty years old if he did not” (129). This obvious demand for money in exchange for false records permeates multiple areas of government. The doctor demanding the bribe from Abdul gives insight as to one root of this corruption. He says, “Yes, it’s rubbish, asking poor boys like you, but the government doesn’t pay us enough money to raise our children. We’re forced to take bribes” (130). Reminding Abdul and readers that government officials also have to survive on low pay and care for their children, Boo’s report of the doctor raises a bigger question: how do we stop such pernicious corruption and thus improve the rights received by people like Abdul Husain?

While this clearly is not an easy question to answer, it may be possible to improve the situation from the center, starting with individuals. While organizations such as WorldVision often often have to deal with the government, help can be distributed through the use of organizations that deliver goods and services directly to under-resourced families, such as the Bill Gates Foundation.