For decades, traditional Indian attire, heritage jewellery, and indigenous handcraft techniques have been borrowed by Western fashion houses without acknowledging the subcontinent as their creative birthplace. In the latest incident drawing sharp criticism, American luxury label Ralph Lauren presented a high-end evening gown featuring intricate Indian Zardozi work, completely omitting any reference to the craft’s Indian heritage.

On September 12, 2026, Ralph Lauren shared several photos across its digital channels spotlighting a deep pink evening gown, including close-up shots showcasing the rich needlework. However, nowhere in the promotional release did the label mention the historic Indian Zardozi technique that defines the garment.

Instead, the American fashion house captioned the reveal: “Draped with shimmering silk-viscose and scattered with hand-applied embellishments, an eveningwear gown from #RalphLaurenSpring2027 makes a cinematic statement.”

Though Zardozi traces its historical roots to ancient Persia, the handicraft grew deeply into the cultural fabric of medieval India, particularly flourishing during the 14th century. Over hundreds of years, it became intrinsically woven into Indian heritage, where it is widely recognized under the name Zari. Today, major manufacturing and artisan centres across India include Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai, Lucknow, Agra, Bareilly, Farrukhabad, Hyderabad, and Bhopal. Over the centuries, the art form has undergone extensive regional evolution.

Following the reveal, Ralph Lauren's social media channels were met with comments from Indian observers, designers, and textile advocates who called out the label for incorporating an iconic Indian needlecraft while stripping it of its cultural identity.

Fashion designer Prakhar Rao Singh Chandel publicly condemned Ralph Lauren's presentation, pointing out that Lucknow Zardozi has held a registered Geographical Indication (GI) tag along with six surrounding districts since 2013. He emphasized that the regional artisan cluster comprises more than 175,000 active craftspeople whose livelihoods depend directly on the preservation and recognition of the craft.

Chandel took strong issue with Ralph Lauren's choice to describe the needlework as mere “embellishments.” He noted that despite drafting an elaborate product description, the company deliberately downplayed a complex, centuries-old artisanal discipline into a vague, generic label.

Furthermore, the brand’s campaign claimed that through artisanal treatments, handwork, and surface texture: “I wanted each piece to feel as though it carries its own history and character”. Critics were quick to point out the contradiction: while claiming to value history and character, the fashion house completely erased the documented origin and historical identity of the Zardozi handicraft it adopted.

Joining the critique, Yash Sahu, Academic Lead and Design Faculty at the IMS Design and Innovation Academy in Noida, explained that the technical structure visible on the gown aligns directly with Indian Zardozi rather than broad, undefined surface ornamentation.

“The metallic surface, raised embellishment and ornamental treatment are all strongly associated with Indian Zardozi traditions. But there may also be elements of Aari or other hand-embroidery techniques used alongside it,” Sahu told The Indian Express.

He further noted the technical nuances required to evaluate the work thoroughly: “A photograph can suggest a technique; it cannot establish the exact stitch construction. To definitively call it Zardozi, Aari or a combination, the garment itself would need to be examined.”

Like Chandel, Sahu objected to reducing the practice to a decorative catch-all term, emphasizing the physical rigor and specialized tools required for authentic execution: “Zardozi is a labour-intensive craft involving metallic threads and embellishments, traditionally including gold and silver elements, sequins, beads and metallic wires,” he explained, detailing how Aari differs structurally by employing a “hooked needle to create a chain-stitch construction.”

Among Indian designers and craft historians, the consensus remains that foreign luxury labels are entirely welcome to work with Indian crafts—provided they give transparent attribution. When an indigenous technique is adopted without credit and its origin is deliberately obscured, the act crosses the line from inspiration into outright appropriation. Respectful borrowing requires honest acknowledgment of a craft’s lineage and practitioners.

This development follows a long pattern of global luxury labels utilizing traditional Indian artisanal work without attribution.

Between March and April 2026, Ralph Lauren marketed traditional jhumka-style earrings under the generic label “vintage accessories.” Alongside these, the brand offered a wrap-silhouette skirt featuring a tie-up waist, flowy hem, and a print inspired by traditional Bandhani tie-dye. Rather than utilizing genuine tie-and-dye methods developed over generations in Gujarat and Rajasthan, the piece used an automated digital print, sidestepping authentic craftspeople altogether.

In mid-2025, Italian luxury fashion house Prada featured a pair of open-toe, flat leather sandals in its Spring/Summer 2026 menswear runway show. Marketed simply as “leather sandals,” the design was an identical replica of India's historic Kolhapuri chappals.

Originating from Kolhapur, Maharashtra, these traditional sandals are celebrated for their hand-braided leather straps, intricate openwork, and durable construction, with skills passed down through families. Kolhapuri chappals have held a recognized GI tag in India since 2019. Prada placed a retail price of ₹1,00,000 ($1,200) on the footwear, whereas authentic, hand-stitched pairs in Indian regional markets typically retail for approximately ₹1,000.

After mounting public outrage and formal objections raised by Kolhapuri artisan collectives, Lorenzo Bertelli, Prada’s Head of Corporate Social Responsibility, issued an official letter to the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce. In the communication, Prada formally acknowledged the footwear’s Indian origin and credited its direct Kolhapuri inspiration.

Shortly after the Prada controversy in 2025, French luxury house Christian Dior unveiled an ivory-and-gold runway overcoat priced at $200,000 in Paris. The luxury garment featured extensive metallic embroidery without citing the Indian artisans who crafted it or mentioning its geographic heritage.

The technique used was Mukaish—also known as badla work—a heritage craft central to the artisanal history of Lucknow. The labor-intensive process requires artisans to twist fine metallic wire directly into delicate fabrics, creating geometric, light-reflecting patterns commonly found on traditional kurtas, dupattas, and handcrafted chikankari sarees.

In August 2025, Italian fashion house Dolce & Gabbana presented its Alta Moda SS25 collection at the Roman Forum in Italy. Among the accessories was a handbag that paired a souvenir motif of the Trevi Fountain with a hand-carved wooden jewellery box identical to those made across northern India, offered without attribution.

The woodwork was created using Jadankari, a traditional walnut wood carving technique practiced predominantly in Kashmir as well as Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, where the craft holds formal GI-tag recognition.

The issue of artisan visibility extends to domestic industry collaborations as well. In 2021, Indian designer Sabyasachi Mukherjee partnered with fast-fashion multinational H&M to launch an affordable capsule line titled Wanderlust. The collection featured prints derived directly from Sanganeri block printing—a centuries-old craft with GI certification practiced by the Chhipa community of Rajasthan.

While the line sold out almost instantly worldwide, artisan guilds received no direct commercial credit or formal partnership. Artisan collectives released public letters condemning the move, stating that Sabyasachi allowed India’s craft heritage to be “bastardised by H&M’s conveyor belt” while using marketing campaigns that emphasized traditional handmade aesthetics.

Earlier that same year, Italian fashion house Gucci faced viral criticism for listing a classic Indian garment as an “organic linen kaftan” with a price tag of $3,500 (approximately ₹2.5 lakh). Consumers pointed out that identical, high-grade garments are sold by local tailors and markets across India for a few hundred rupees, citing the listing as a prime example of exploitative rebranding.

Cross-cultural exchange has always driven fashion forward, but a persistent imbalance remains: global fashion houses routinely take named, GI-protected, community-developed crafts, strip them of their regional identity, apply generic marketing terminology, and capture high profit margins without acknowledging the creators.

This practice generates both financial disadvantage and cultural erasure. When historic regional methods are folded into Western branding without credit, centuries of artisanal heritage are effectively rebranded under foreign corporate names, leaving regional creators without fair compensation or visibility.

A clear historical precedent exists in the 19th century: the teardrop buta motif found on handwoven Kashmiri shawls became so globally popular that Scottish textile mills in Paisley industrialized the pattern. The resulting flood of mass-produced, cheap imitations eventually undermined the Kashmiri weaving industry, while the motif itself was permanently renamed the "Paisley" print in the global lexicon.

Fair trade and cultural preservation require luxury houses to move beyond uncredited imitation. Ethical partnerships, transparent attribution of origin, direct artisan compensation, and joint intellectual credit offer a sustainable path forward that honours the true origins of world craftsmanship.