Oscar Shortlisted ‘Homebound’ Documents Real Pandemic Migrant Workers’ Struggles in India

A Journey Through Pandemic Struggles

The film Homebound, nominated for an Oscar in 2026, is based on the real-life experiences of Mohammad Saiyub, a Muslim man, and Amrit Kumar, a Dalit Hindu man, who undertook a 1,000-mile journey during India’s early pandemic lockdowns. Their ordeal, detailed in a New York Times essay by Basharat Peer, underscores the systemic challenges faced by migrant workers during the crisis. Kumar, who succumbed to heat exhaustion after being left by a truck driver, was supported by Saiyub on a roadside, an image that became emblematic of both solidarity and despair. The pandemic’s impact on India’s 80 million migrant workers—many of whom sought to return to their home states—revealed deep disparities in infrastructure, healthcare, and social mobility. Kumar’s death in 2020 highlighted the fatal consequences of caste-based discrimination and the state’s failure to safeguard vulnerable populations. While the film’s narrative is fictionalized, it reflects the real-world hardships endured by millions who faced hunger, dehydration, and violence during the lockdowns.

Caste and Religious Discrimination in India

The story also examines the broader context of India’s caste system, which continues to marginalize Dalits, historically regarded as ‘untouchables’. Kumar’s Dalit identity, compounded by religious discrimination, placed him at the intersection of systemic oppression. Director Neeraj Ghaywan, drawing from his own Dalit heritage, portrayed Kumar’s character to emphasize the psychological and emotional toll of caste-based prejudice. This personal connection allowed Ghaywan to depict the nuances of discrimination, such as the shame Kumar felt when excluded from communal spaces or forced into menial labor. The film’s focus on the friendship between Saiyub and Kumar challenges the notion of caste and religion as fixed categories, instead illustrating how these identities shape lived experiences during crises.

“Amrit used to see my sorrow and my happiness. If I watch this film — and Amrit doesn’t speak to me, what is the point?”

Blending Fact and Fiction

Homebound interweaves real-life events with fictionalized experiences, following two childhood friends preparing for the national police examination. Their bond, tested by the harsh realities of rural India, mirrors the real-life relationship between Saiyub and Kumar, whose friendship was both a source of strength and a reflection of systemic barriers. Ghaywan’s decision to blend fact and fiction underscores the film’s intent to explore themes of friendship, survival, and societal neglect. The narrative structure reinforces the real-life journey of Saiyub and Kumar, whose bond highlighted the resilience of individuals amid adversity.

Systemic Violence and State Failure

The film’s depiction of caste and religious discrimination is both visceral and symbolic. Scenes such as a Dalit woman losing her job as a school cook due to upper-caste parents’ refusal to eat her food, or Muslims being mocked during cricket matches for their perceived association with Pakistan, illustrate the everyday violence of systemic bias. These moments serve as critiques of how caste and religion are weaponized to sustain social hierarchies. The film also critiques the Indian State’s failure to address these issues, with lockdown policies disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. By centering the experiences of Dalits and Muslims, Homebound challenges audiences to confront the persistence of these prejudices in modern India.

Critical Reception and Controversies

Homebound received widespread critical acclaim, including a nine-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival in 2025. Its Oscar nomination for Best International Feature Film marked a significant milestone for Indian cinema, though it did not advance to the final five. Critics praised the film’s emotional depth and its ability to humanize complex social issues. The New York Times described it as a ‘moving portrait’ of friendship transcending caste and religious divides, while the Guardian highlighted its role in educating audiences about discrimination. However, the film also sparked debates about its representation of Dalit and Muslim experiences. Some critics argued it relied on ‘standard instances’ of bias, oversimplifying the multifaceted nature of caste and religious discrimination. Others questioned the use of upper-caste actors for Dalit roles, suggesting it risked perpetuating stereotypes rather than challenging them.

Artistic Intent and Censorship Concerns

Despite these critiques, Homebound was lauded for its unflinching portrayal of systemic inequities. Ghay, the director, defended its approach, stating the goal was to ‘highlight the reality of discrimination without romanticizing it.’ The film’s inclusion in India’s Oscar entry list also sparked discussions about the country’s cinematic representation of social issues. While some praised its courage to address sensitive topics, others pointed out that censors altered certain scenes to soften the portrayal of caste and religious discrimination, raising questions about the limits of artistic freedom in a politically charged environment.

Political Context and Societal Tensions

“the goal was to ‘highlight the reality of discrimination without romanticizing it.’”

The film’s release coincided with heightened political tensions in India, marked by the Hindu nationalist policies of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP. The focus on caste and religious discrimination resonated with debates about the role of religion in public life and the marginalization of minority communities. Critics argued the film’s portrayal of Dalit and Muslim struggles reflected broader societal tensions under Modi’s leadership, where affirmative action policies have been rolled back and religious minorities face increasing scrutiny. The film’s success at Cannes and its Oscar nomination were seen as a counterpoint to the government’s narrative of national unity, offering an alternative vision of India’s social fabric.

Cinema’s Role in Addressing Systemic Issues

The film also sparked conversations about cinema’s role in addressing systemic issues. Ghaywan’s decision to base the film on a true story was viewed as a bold move, given the risks of censorship and backlash in India’s media landscape. The film’s screening for the families of Saiyub and Kumar in their hometown, Devari, further underscored its personal and political significance. Kumar’s mother, Subhawati, refused to watch the film, stating, ‘Amrit used to see my sorrow and my happiness. If I watch this film — and Amrit doesn’t speak to me, what is the point?’ Her words highlight the emotional weight of the film and its inability to fully capture the trauma of loss.

Legacy and Enduring Relevance

Homebound has left a lasting impact on discussions about caste and religious discrimination in India. Its blend of real-life events and fictional storytelling has made it a touchstone for debates about representation, systemic bias, and the power of cinema to challenge societal norms. The film’s Oscar nomination and critical acclaim have also elevated Indian cinema on the global stage, showcasing the country’s capacity to produce socially conscious narratives. However, its legacy is also tied to the broader struggles of migrant workers and marginalized communities, whose stories remain underrepresented in mainstream discourse. The film’s exploration of friendship and survival in the face of adversity continues to resonate, offering a poignant reflection on the human condition. As India grapples with the legacy of its caste system and the challenges of religious pluralism, Homebound serves as both a mirror and a call to action. Its ability to humanize complex social issues ensures it will remain a significant cultural artifact, even as the conversations it sparked evolve. The film’s enduring relevance lies in its refusal to simplify the realities of discrimination, instead presenting them as a deeply personal and collective struggle.