"The Goat Life”: The film that angered the Saudis

Cinema isn’t just a passing trend in India—it’s a vital part of the country’s culture and the lives of its people. India, which produces nearly 2,000 cinematic films annually, breathes this art form, using it to reflect its unique culture and the diversity of its sources, including its political, religious, and ethnic conflicts. This has been the case since the rise of Amitabh Bachchan—dubbed the "Angry Young Man" due to his portrayal of disillusioned anti-hero characters—in the 1970s, continuing into the new millennium with films that broke away from the typical Bollywood formula, like Shah Rukh Khan's "My Name is Khan," which boldly addressed the discrimination Muslims faced after 9/11, or films like "Pink," which tackled violence against women, and "Bajrangi Bhaijaan," which explored political conflicts between neighboring countries.

Recently, this Indian cinematic discourse brought us a new film through Netflix, which addresses a contentious issue: the plight of migrant workers in Gulf countries. The movie is based on the true story of an Indian citizen who traveled to Saudi Arabia, and has sparked controversy in the Kingdom.

"The Goat Life"

The three-hour film begins by portraying the life of Najeeb Muhammad, a simple young man from Kerala who dreams of going abroad to secure a better future for his unborn child. As the story goes, Najeeb and his younger brother struggle to gather the money needed to obtain a visa for a Gulf country. After much hardship, they manage to secure jobs with a Saudi company, and their life seemed like a rosy dream—until they arrive at Jeddah Airport. Here, their lives take a dramatic turn when Najeeb’s sponsor, or ‘kafeel’, forces him to live alone in the desert, with only goats for company. The film shows how, over time, Najeeb becomes one of the goats, losing all sense of emotion, time, and even the desire to speak or think. This isolation takes a toll on his memory and speech, and the film follows his harrowing journey until he miraculously escapes after three years of suffering.

Omani actor Talib Al Balushi plays the role of the cruel Saudi sponsor, alongside Jordanian actor Akef Najem, both of whom have sparked outrage among Saudi audiences on social media for being part of the film.

The film was first released on March 29th and has grossed nearly one billion rupees (about $12 million US dollars) across India, despite not being in Hindi—the main language of Bollywood. Instead, the lead actor speaks Malayalam, the language of Kerala

Actor Prithviraj Sukumaran’s portrayal of Najeeb impressed the real-life man whose story inspired the film. The man commented on the performance, saying, "I felt like I was watching a reflection of myself in most of the film’s scenes."

Talib Al Balushi’s portrayal of the Saudi sponsor is perhaps the first of its kind in cinema, and it has sparked widespread controversy around the film. The character is depicted as a man devoid of compassion, treating camels and goats better than his worker, denying him basic human rights, and attempting to strip him of his humanity by dehumanizing him and treating him like an animal. Whether through beatings or shooting him in the leg for merely complaining, the sponsor’s cruelty knows no bounds. Al Balushi, though Omani, is a significant figure in Malayalam cinema, known for his roles both as a writer and actor. The film also includes another Arab presence, with Jordanian actor Akef Najem making a guest appearance in this controversial production.

Who is Najeeb Muhammad?

The Indian writer Benyamin published the full story titled, “Goat Days” in 2008, revealing that the true events took place in 1992. At that time, Gulf countries were importing massive numbers of Indian workers, and Najeeb was one of the young men who managed to secure a job after paying 55,000 rupees (about $650) for a work visa in Saudi Arabia. His life would have taken a completely different turn had it not been for a Saudi man kidnapping him from the airport and exploiting Najeeb’s inability to communicate due to the language barrier and his inexperience with travel and dealing with the outside world.

Through Najeeb’s words, the writer recounts many of the inhumane situations he endured during those three years, including sleeping next to 700 goats, having no clothes other than what he was wearing, being denied access to water for bathing or basic needs, and being given nothing but bread and onions to eat. He was also constantly tortured, and his official documents were destroyed to prevent him from escaping the endless desert, as he described it.

Indian reactions

Although Najeeb managed to return home after three years of horror, he struggled to move on from the experience, even decades later. He underwent numerous physical and psychological treatments to regain a semblance of normalcy. Several Indian organizations took up Najeeb’s case, and after the film’s release, campaigns were launched to monitor abuses against Indian workers worldwide and to establish laws to protect these workers both financially and mentally. Najeeb became a frequent guest on various television programs, and newspapers and websites published detailed interviews about his ordeal to ensure that no one else would have to endure a similar fate.

The film has been available on Netflix for a month, but the Saudi backlash only began a few days ago, coinciding with the recent addition of Arabic subtitles, which brought the movie to the attention of Gulf audiences.

Saudi backlash

Although the film has been available on Netflix for a month, the Saudi backlash only began a few days ago, following the recent addition of Arabic subtitles, which brought the movie to the attention of Gult audiences. The film’s significant success and the global debate it sparked also turned the Arab world’s, particularly Saudi Arabia’s, attention toward the film. Some Saudis criticized the movie even before watching it, a sentiment that became evident on the social media platform "X" (formerly Twitter), where Saudi users launched fierce attacks on the film and its creators, circulating many false claims about the production.

For instance, many posts and tweets falsely claimed that the movie was filmed in the UAE, leading to criticism of both the UAE and Oman, the homeland of the film’s second lead actor. In reality, the movie was shot in the deserts of Jordan and Algeria, as well as in Kerala, India. Moreover, the participation of Arab actors from various nationalities does not represent the official stance of their respective countries or even their personal views. The story is based on actual events and verified facts that constitute crimes against humanity in general, without bias toward any particular nationality. However, this simple logic did not deter the social media users from attacking the mentioned countries.

Saudi critics and proponents of “this conspiracy theory against Saudi Arabia" extended their attacks to the film’s creators, accusing them of "fabricating ready-made accusations" and targeting the "land of the Two Holy Mosques," as they put it. However, no rational reason was offered for why these filmmakers would aim to smear a country as large as Saudi Arabia, which still hosts one of the largest Indian communities on its soil. Notably, the Saudi backlash did not address Najeeb’s story or the suffering he endured; instead, it focused solely on the filmmakers’ alleged intention to tarnish Saudi Arabia’s image, vilify the kafala sponsorship system, and accuse some Arab countries of colluding with India, while also questioning Netflix’s motives, which of course we do not absolve, but in contexts unrelated to this film.

Numerous tragic stories have surfaced about workers from Egypt, Oman, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, and other foreign laborers, all caused by the kafala system. While some of these cases had been previously uncovered, their exposure has increased significantly on social media since the film’s release.

The kafala system

This is not the first time the character of the sponsor has stirred controversy and accusations of violations against foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. In 2020, numerous global news agencies reported horrific testimonies from Ethiopian workers who were held in Saudi Arabia and forced to work under inhumane conditions, despite the deadly COVID-19 pandemic. These workers described their experience in Saudi Arabia as hellish, due to the inhumane practices of their sponsors. This led the Saudi government to launch an initiative called the "National Transformation Program" to improve contractual relations for workers and abolish the controversial kafala system in 2021. However, subsequent decisions reintroduced some aspects of the kafala system for certain professions, continuing the crisis as these professions are the very ones that had suffered under the sponsor system, which resembled a form of legalized and regulated slavery.

Numerous tragic stories have surfaced about workers from Egypt, Oman, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, and other foreign laborers, all caused by the kafala system. While some of these cases had been previously uncovered, their exposure has increased significantly on social media since the film’s release. Other cases remain unreported due to fears of losing employment, angering sponsors, or extended persecution that sometimes affects the worker's family as well.

The greatest suffering under this system falls on foreign workers from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, the Philippines, and other countries in East Asia and Central Africa. Due to language barriers and lack of understanding of contractual terms, they are often from uneducated social strata, making them vulnerable to inhumane exploitation and violations.

Despite the international controversy stirred by the film, from an artistic perspective and regardless of other considerations, it is a rich piece of cinema that meets all the criteria of great artistic works. Therefore, it is recommended to watch it whether the viewer is interested in humanitarian issues or is simply just a fan of Indian cinema.

* The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Raseef22