Picture a grandmother in Gujarat sitting cross-legged on the floor, practising Bandhani, her fingers moving with a quiet confidence that comes from forty years of repetition. She ties hundreds of tiny knots across a single piece of fabric before it is dipped into dye, each knot a small act of precision and patience.
The finished cloth is meant for her daughter’s wedding, a piece of tradition carried forward. This is Bandhani, a craft so enduring it has outlived empires. Now picture that same dotted pattern on a Ralph Lauren website, described briefly as being “inspired by traditional Bandhani tie-dye techniques and motifs,” and priced at nearly Rs 44,800.
Nowhere on the page does it say India. Nowhere does it mention Gujarat or Rajasthan, where this art has lived for centuries. The grandmother in that room is invisible. That invisibility is what has upset so many people this week, and honestly, it is hard to argue with their frustration.
What Bandhani actually is, and why it matters so deeply
Bandhani is not simply a tie-dye technique. That description, as technically accurate as it might be, is a little like calling the Taj Mahal a building made of stone. It is true, but it misses everything that makes it what it is.
The craft involves tying thousands of tiny knots into fabric, each one placed with intention, before the cloth is dipped into natural dyes. When the knots are removed, what remains is a constellation of dots, circles, and geometric shapes that look almost too delicate to have been made by human hands.
The skill takes years to learn and a lifetime to perfect. In cities like Jamnagar and Bhuj in Gujarat, and in Jaipur and Jodhpur in Rajasthan, entire families have passed this knowledge down through generations. It is their livelihood, their identity, and in many cases, their inheritance.
Bandhani is also deeply emotional in a way that few textiles are. It is worn at weddings, during festivals, and on the most important days of a woman’s life. When a mother wraps a Bandhani dupatta around her daughter before the wedding rituals begin, she is not just handing over fabric.
She is handing over something that carries her family’s story. To flatten that into “tie-dye” is not just imprecise. It is a small kind of erasure. “It would have been nice to say India’s traditional Bandhani. Just to put India in there,” said an Indian social media user whose video comparing the skirt to authentic Bandhani went viral.
How the internet reacted, and why it hit so hard this time
The backlash started on social media, as it often does. One video in particular gained enormous traction. A woman, wearing a traditional Bandhani outfit, held up the Ralph Lauren product listing and asked a simple question:
Why is a machine-printed approximation of this craft being sold for Rs 44,800 while the real thing, made by hand by an artisan who has spent their life mastering it, costs a fraction of that? She was not calling for a boycott. She was not even particularly angry. She was just asking to be seen.
That quiet hurt in her voice is what resonated. Indian designer Joy Mitra put it plainly when he said that taking inspiration from Indian crafts is perfectly natural and even welcome, but the minimum expectation is acknowledgement. Naming where something comes from is not a political act. It is basic respect.
The sentiment was echoed across fashion communities online. The skirt, many pointed out, does not even appear to be handcrafted in the traditional Bandhani method.
It looks machine-printed, which makes the irony sharper. A brand charging nearly Rs 45,000 for a garment could not find the space in its product description to write the word India.
This is not the first time, not even close
Here is where the story gets harder to ignore. This is not an isolated moment. It is part of a pattern that Ralph Lauren has been caught in more than once, with more than one culture.
Early 2026:South Asian Jhumkas at Paris Fashion Week
Just weeks before the Bandhani skirt story broke, Ralph Lauren’s Fall 2026 collection featured traditional South Asian bell-shaped earrings, known as jhumkas, on the runway at Paris Fashion Week. The brand listed them simply as “vintage accessories,” with no mention of South Asia or India at all. The backlash was swift, but no statement followed.
2022:Indigenous Mexican coat controversy
Ralph Lauren released a coat that closely resembled traditional designs worn by Indigenous communities in Mexico. No credit was given to the artisans or their communities. After significant pressure, the brand issued an apology and said it was investigating how the design came to be.
2014: Native American photograph campaign
The brand used old photographs of deceased Native American men in a holiday advertisement without identifying who they were or seeking consent from their communities. A boycott campaign led to the images being removed and an apology being issued. Critics noted it was not the first time Ralph Lauren had used Native American imagery without proper context.
2009: Model Photoshop controversy
An advertisement featuring model Filippa Hamilton was retouched to make her waist appear unnaturally narrow. Hamilton later claimed she was dismissed by the brand for being too large, a claim the company denied. The incident sparked a broader conversation about body image and the fashion industry’s responsibilities.
Ralph Lauren is not alone, but that is not a reason to look away
It would be unfair not to say this: Ralph Lauren is not the only fashion house that has walked into this territory.
Prada faced intense public criticism for showcasing footwear that looked unmistakably like Kolhapuri chappals, a traditional craft from Maharashtra that holds Geographic Indication status in India. The backlash was so sustained that Prada eventually acknowledged the inspiration publicly.
Givenchy was called out for a draped skirt that resembled a saree, presented without any cultural reference. Zara faced anger over a skirt that looked very much like a lungi, and Gucci drew criticism for placing turbans on the runway in a way many found disrespectful.
The pattern across all these cases is not difficult to see. A craft or garment that is deeply rooted in a specific community travel to a Western runway or website, stripped of its name and its story, and sold at a price point that the artisans who created the tradition could never afford. The community that built the craft gets nothing: no credit, no collaboration, no share of the profit.
“As an Indian designer, I believe it is perfectly fine to draw inspiration from our rich crafts and textiles. But whether they give due respect to our heritage and acknowledge its origins is non-negotiable,” said designer Joy Mitra.
ALSO READ |Mexico’s Fátima Bosch Crowned Miss Universe 2025 in a Stunning Triumph
What acknowledgement actually looks like, and why it is not complicated
There is sometimes a defensive response to controversies like this one, and it goes something like this: fashion has always borrowed across cultures, and that exchange is what makes it alive. That is not entirely wrong. Indian textiles themselves carry the influence of Mughal courts, Persian dye traditions, and British colonial trade routes. Creative borrowing is as old as creativity itself.
But the conversation in 2026 is not really about borrowing. It is about the difference between borrowing and erasing. When a brand names the source, tells the story, and ideally works with or compensates the artisan communities involved, the exchange feels like appreciation. When it takes the visual and leaves the name behind, it feels like something else entirely.
Naming India in the product description would have cost Ralph Lauren nothing. Saying “Gujarat’s traditional Bandhani craft” would have taken perhaps four words.
Some brands have gone further, working directly with artisan cooperatives, crediting craftspeople by name, and making the story of the textile as much a part of the product as the textile itself. That is the direction the industry is being pushed toward, and for good reason.
ALSO READ |Virat Kohli Liked LizLaz’s Instagram Photo, and the Internet Is Absolutely on Fire!
The world is watching differently now
Something has genuinely shifted in how people receive these moments. A few years ago, a luxury brand releasing a “globally inspired” collection would have attracted some criticism and moved on relatively quickly. Today, the audience is more informed, more connected to artisan communities, and more willing to hold a brand accountable across time.
Indian consumers in particular are increasingly aware of their own textile heritage. They know what Bandhani is. They know what it costs in the market in Jamnagar.
They know that a metre of handmade Bandhani fabric is available for between Rs 200 and Rs 500, made by someone who learned the skill from their mother, who learned it from hers. The gap between that and a Rs 44,800 machine-printed skirt with a vague description is not invisible to them.
Whether Ralph Lauren responds with more than silence this time remains to be seen. The brand has not yet stated the Bandhani skirt. What it does next, or chooses not to do, will say more than any product description ever could.
Disclaimer:
This article has been prepared for informational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed within are based on publicly available information, social media responses, and statements from named individuals as reported across credible media sources at the time of publication. This publication does not represent any legal position on matters of intellectual property or cultural ownership. Readers are encouraged to refer to official brand communications for any formal statements.
Pronita Devi, an M.A. in Political Science, has spent over a decade in electronic and digital media. She regularly contributes insightful articles on geopolitics and current affairs, bringing clarity and depth to complex global issues.