It was supposed to be a sweet advertisement meant to celebrate a much-cherished festival. A grown woman gets ready to tie a rakhi to her younger brother before another family member tries to grab her attention. This family member, it turns out, is a pet dog who gets a special rakhi of his own. The advertisement ends in a few seconds with the actors, including the four-legged one, smiling as they bask in the warmth of familial love.

The advertisement has many things going for it: An actor fresh off a box-office success, a cute concept nailing the evolving nature of what family means, and brevity to suit the diminishing attention span that has become a marker of our times.

Advertisement

But it was another kind of brevity that ended up grabbing all the attention: The short blouse that the actor, Kriti Sanon, is shown wearing as she celebrated the festival.

Here’s a breakdown of Sanon’s all-white outfit: A short, embellished, sleeveless blouse, a cape to cover it, and a long, full-length skirt. Ask a stylist and they might tell you that it was a perfect occasion wear, combining the right amount of playfulness and modesty.

But the internet, including at least one woman Parliamentarian, decided otherwise. “Why would you tie a rakhi to your brother in your bikini/undergarments?” the MP asked.

Advertisement

The chorus only grew louder, ruling that the outfit was not part of “Indian culture”. For many of us, however, it’s nothing that we have not seen women wearing at weddings, in front of their family members, including brothers. I thought about weddings in my own extended family — the backless blouses my aunt wore, the spaghetti straps and tummy-baring lehenga choli my cousin donned. At my own brother’s wedding not very long ago, I wore a blouse with a low back, confidently sharing the pictures with the caption: “sassy, with a side of backflab”.

Perhaps it has something to do with how safe and non-judged we feel around family, brothers included. And those outfits were not meant to titillate or draw unwanted attention. We wore what we did because we thought we looked good in it.

The hullabaloo says more about those objecting to the outfit than those who are in the advertisement. If anything is “intentionally creepy”, it is this reaction.

As it happens, the objection to the ad was not just confined to the lead actor’s outfit. Some people also had problems with a pet being at the centre of a traditional celebration, arguing that this too is against, wait for it, our “culture”. One often wonders whether people who talk about culture even know what they are talking about? Indian myths and folktales are full of four-legged creatures and feathered friends who played key roles, sometimes sacrificing their own lives, in the service of gods and people.

Despite the trolling, Sanon stood by her outfit and said, “culture and traditions are in a woman’s heart, not her neckline”. The brand was not as bold and pulled the advertisement off the air the very next day. The only silver lining would be if it at least made profits off the controversy, getting people to check out their products and buy them.

I hope that now that the “objectionable” ad is out of the way, we look beyond the necklines of women’s outfits. The nature of traditions — including “traditional” outfits, and the family, is evolving. It is better the rest of us do too.

The writer is assistant editor, . deepika.singh@expressindia.com