₹44,800 Ralph Lauren Bandhani Skirt Ignites Cultural Appropriation Debate

Add as a preferred source on Google

A global fashion label has found itself at the centre of an online storm, after a Bandhani-inspired skirt priced at around ₹44,800 triggered criticism across social media. The backlash against Ralph Lauren reflects a growing unease around how traditional crafts are borrowed, rebranded, and sold, often without acknowledgement of their origins.

Photo Credit: Ralph Lauren

How the controversy began

The debate was sparked by a viral video from a social media user, JIX5A, who called out both the pricing and the way the skirt was presented. She pointed out that while the design clearly resembled Bandhani, a traditional Indian tie-dye technique, the product description framed it as "inspired" without meaningfully crediting its cultural roots.

The video quickly gained traction, with users echoing similar concerns. Many questioned why a craft deeply rooted in Indian heritage was being repackaged as a luxury Western product, stripped of its context.

This is sacrilege! Why Ralph Lauren, why?!

Ralph Lauren, you have no shame! all of the western fashion houses have no shame! You all just rip off Indian fashion designs and rename it with cheap fake material with outrageous prices of 5! pic.twitter.com/Q88iIyCHfw

— JIX5A (@JIX5A) April 18, 2026

What is Bandhani-and why it matters

Bandhani (or Bandhej) is not just a design-it's a labour-intensive textile tradition that dates back centuries. Practised widely in Gujarat and Rajasthan, the technique involves tying thousands of tiny knots on fabric before dyeing it, creating intricate patterns that are impossible to replicate through simple printing.

For many artisans, Bandhani is more than a livelihood; it is a cultural identity passed down through generations. This is why the lack of acknowledgment struck a nerve. To critics, it wasn't just about fashion-it was about erasure.

The pricing debate

Another major flashpoint was the cost. The skirt, reportedly priced at around $375 (roughly ₹44,800), became a symbol of what many described as "luxury mark-up on heritage."

Users pointed out that authentic Bandhani garments-often handmade-are available in India at a fraction of the price, with the actual artisans earning far less than what global brands charge.

This contrast led to uncomfortable questions: Who profits from traditional art? And who gets left behind?

Social media reaction: Anger, irony, and calls for accountability

Photo Credit: Ralph Lauren

From scathing comments to caustic irony, various types of responses were evident on social media platforms. Some users poked fun at the attempt to discover the indigenous arts under foreign nomenclature, while others pointed out the trend where native designs are seen as luxury only when recognized by worldwide labels.

One common plea was attribution to the source. If companies took cues from the ancient forms of art, then they should give credit to the source as well.

Not an isolated incident

This particular issue can be traced back to an existing trend in the world of fashion. Indeed, in the past decades, there were quite a few luxury brands accused of stealing ideas from other, non-Western cultures in terms of fabrics, embroidery, and cuts. The difference is that today, there is a more active consumer reaction to such practices.

Why this conversation is growing louder

The root of the problem lies much deeper than the skirt in question or even a single brand name. There has been an evolution of consumer awareness that means they are not going to be taken for fools.

In today's society where marketing is all about story-telling, the lack of cultural credit cannot be ignored anymore.

The Bigger Picture

For brands, inspiration has always been part of fashion. However, the difference between appreciation and appropriation has never seemed more scrutinised.

With this discourse taking place in the industry, the next relevant question must be asked: is being inspired enough, or should accountability be called for as well?

Because in many cases, it appears that the message behind heritage shouldn't merely be used as a design aesthetic, it should also be acknowledged.