Let’s talk about the blouse. Not the rakhi. Not the brother. Not the sister. Not even the dog. The blouse. Because somehow, that became the biggest story in Kriti Sanon’s Raksha Bandhan advertisement.
The ad itself was fairly simple. Kriti played a sister celebrating Raksha Bandhan with her brother, with the family dog also included in the celebration. She tied a rakhi, the family came together, and the jewellery brand attempted to present the festival through a contemporary family setting.
Then the internet arrived. Was Kriti’s outfit traditional enough? Was it respectful enough? Was a bralette-style blouse appropriate for Raksha Bandhan? Suddenly, a jewellery advertisement was no longer about a sibling bond. It was about a woman’s neckline.
And that is where this debate gets interesting. Because what exactly are we measuring? Her clothes? Her culture? Her values? Her love for her brother? Or are we simply measuring how comfortable other people are with a woman’s body?
What Did Kangana Ranaut Actually Object To?
Kangana Ranaut was among those who questioned the advertisement. In her initial reaction, she criticised Kriti’s outfit, describing the blouse as looking like a “bikini/undergarment” and questioning why someone would tie a rakhi to her brother while dressed that way.
It was an easy line for the internet to latch onto. But Kangana later made it clear that her objection was not simply about Kriti’s blouse. Her larger argument was about cultural context. Kangana argued that festivals are not simply occasions for attractive styling and jewellery campaigns. They carry history, rituals and visual markers that make them recognisable as cultural celebrations.
She questioned where the parents were in the advertisement. Where was the home? The tilak? The akshat? The incense? The lamp?
Her point was essentially this: if you are going to make an advertisement around a traditional festival, shouldn’t the tradition itself be visible? That is a legitimate question.
Brands can absolutely be criticised for reducing festivals to aesthetics. They can be asked whether they understand the cultural context they are borrowing from.
Kriti Sanon Had A Different Answer
Kriti did not apologise. Instead, she questioned why her clothes had become the measure of her cultural identity in the first place.
The actress’ sister Nupur Sanon too reacted, saying, “Imagine being this bothered by what another woman chooses to wear. Respectfully, evolve. PS: I’m the one she tied the rakhi to, and if I don’t have a problem with it, why do you? The essence of festivals is not in the clothes you wear; it is in the emotions and meaning you attach to the traditions.”
Wait, wait. Kriti also addressed another detail that became part of the criticism: the presence of the dog. This is what she wrote in a post shared on her Instagram stories, “Raksha Bandhan is a bond of protection. My sister and I tie rakhi to each other. We know we can protect each other just as much as a brother would. We pray for each other’s health, happiness, and long life. For us, this prayer and promise extend to our dogs too. After all, they are family!”
Again, it is not particularly difficult to understand. Families today do include pets. Siblings can be brothers, sisters, cousins or people who have simply grown up together. Traditions do not disappear just because the way people celebrate them changes.
And then Kriti made the larger point. She continued, “When will we stop telling women what to wear? Ethnic fashion has evolved over the years, yet a woman’s respect for her culture is still measured by her clothes. Culture and traditions are in her heart, not in her neckline!”
That is perhaps the sentence at the centre of this entire controversy.
Because culture is not clothing. At least, it isn’t only clothing. Culture is memory. It is food. It is language. It is music. It is rituals. It is family. It is stories passed down. It is what people believe. It is how people live.
Clothes can express culture. They can be an important part of it. But they cannot possibly be the only measure of it. A woman wearing a saree is not automatically more respectful. A woman wearing jeans is not automatically less traditional. And a woman wearing a bralette does not suddenly lose her relationship with her culture.
Madhu Chopra’s ‘Daayra’ Argument Adds To Controversy
Then came Madhu Chopra, whose response occupied a slightly different space. “My body, my choice is right, but woh daayra zaruri hai,” she said.
The boundary matters. Context matters. Respect matters. Madhu argued that clothes that may be perfectly normal in one setting may not necessarily be appropriate in another. She also spoke about the importance of aesthetic context when representing cultural occasions.
And this is where the conversation deserves some nuance. Because yes, context matters. Nobody is suggesting that it doesn’t.
We all understand that what you wear to a beach is different from what you wear to a wedding. What you wear to a nightclub may be different from what you wear to a religious ceremony.
Occasion matters. Place matters. People are allowed to have different ideas about what looks appropriate. But who decides where the boundary lies? That is the uncomfortable question. Because when the conversation turns into an examination of a woman’s neckline, we are no longer merely discussing cultural context. We are policing her.
Why Does A Woman’s Outfit Become A Cultural Report Card?
Think about how often this happens. A woman wears something short. Someone questions her values.
A woman wears something revealing. Someone questions her upbringing. A woman wears Western clothes at a festival. Someone questions whether she respects her culture. A woman dresses traditionally. She is praised for being “sanskaari”.
The message is remarkably consistent. A woman’s clothes are treated as a shortcut to understanding her character. And festivals make that scrutiny even worse. Because suddenly the outfit is not merely an outfit. It is a statement. It is representation. It is culture.
It is apparently everything except what it actually is: A piece of clothing.
It is an argument for asking why women are so often expected to carry the burden of cultural respect on their bodies. Why should my blouse prove that I love my family? Why should my sleeves prove that I respect my traditions?
Does Raksha Bandhan Really Need A Dress Code?
This is where the controversy becomes bigger than Kriti Sanon. Because Raksha Bandhan is not one single experience. For some families, it means elaborate rituals. For others, it means sweets and gifts. For some, it means travelling home. For others, it means a video call between siblings living in different cities.
That does not necessarily make the tradition meaningless. It means traditions are lived by people. And people change. Our festivals have always evolved with us. The way families celebrate today is not identical to how families celebrated decades ago. Even within the same country, the rituals, food, clothes and customs can vary dramatically.
So why do we suddenly behave as though there is one officially approved Raksha Bandhan outfit? Where is the rulebook? Who wrote it? Who decides whether a particular neckline crosses the line? And why does the burden of getting it right seem to fall disproportionately on women?
But Was The Advertisement Really About Raksha Bandhan?
If someone believes the campaign did not sufficiently capture the cultural essence of Raksha Bandhan, that is a creative criticism. If someone believes the styling distracted from the festival, that is a creative criticism.
If someone believes the inclusion of certain elements made the campaign feel disconnected from the occasion, that too is fair. But when the criticism becomes “why is she wearing that while tying a rakhi?”, the conversation has moved.
The brand is no longer being judged. The woman is. And that is precisely where these debates become unnecessary.
Then GIVA Pulled The Advertisement
Eventually, GIVA withdrew the campaign amid the controversy. And that raises another uncomfortable question. What happens when online outrage becomes the final editor?
If enough people object to an advertisement, does that automatically mean the advertisement was culturally offensive? Or does it simply mean the criticism was loud enough? Brands obviously have every right to withdraw campaigns.
But there is something worth noticing here. The campaign began as a story about a family celebrating Raksha Bandhan. It ended up becoming a story about whether a woman’s blouse had crossed an invisible line.
Kriti Is An Actor. She Is Not A Cultural Ambassador
There is another expectation placed on actresses that deserves scrutiny.
The moment a celebrity appears in a festival campaign, she is somehow expected to represent an entire culture. But Kriti Sanon is an actor. She is not an elected representative of Indian womanhood. She does not have to dress in a way that satisfies every person’s definition of cultural authenticity. And she certainly does not have to become a symbol every time she puts on an outfit.
Sometimes an outfit is just an outfit. Sometimes an advertisement is just an advertisement. Sometimes a family is just celebrating. And sometimes a dog is just part of the family. That should not be controversial.
So What Did We Actually Achieve?
Kangana’s larger point about cultural context is worth hearing. Madhu Chopra’s argument about context and boundaries is worth discussing. Kriti’s argument that culture cannot be reduced to a neckline is equally worth hearing.
These positions can coexist. That is what a real conversation looks like. We can ask brands to represent festivals thoughtfully without asking women to dress according to an invisible moral code.
We can value tradition without treating it as a tool to control women’s bodies. We can disagree with an outfit without deciding that the woman wearing it has failed her culture. Because ultimately, that is the question this entire controversy leaves behind.
What exactly are we protecting? Raksha Bandhan? Tradition? Or our own comfort with telling women what they should wear?
