"Inspired By" How Indian craft travels the world without its name
There is a skirt on the Ralph Lauren website. It costs ₹44,800. It is described as featuring "a vibrant design inspired by traditional Bandhani tie-dye techniques and motifs" in "a beautifully draped silhouette." It is, to be precise, a machine-printed cotton wrap skirt. It is also Bandhani, a resist-dyeing technique from Kutch and Saurashtra, Gujarat, where artisans tie thousands of tiny knots into fabric by hand, each knot irreversible, before the cloth ever meets dye. The women who make it can tie thousands of knots across a single metre of cloth. The skirt says "tie-dye inspired." It does not say Kutch. It does not say Bandhani. It does not say Gujarat, or the Khatri community, or the fact that this technique has been documented in India since at least the 12th century, with some references placing its origins considerably earlier. It says "vibrant design."
A Brief History Before It Became a Trend
Bandhani, from the Sanskrit bandhana, meaning to bind, has been documented in Kutch since the 12th century, when the Khatri community migrated from Sindh and established the craft as a core local industry. The earliest surviving specimens in institutional collections are housed at the Calico Museum of Textiles in Ahmedabad, whose 1983 publication on Indian tie-dyed fabrics remains one of the foundational academic references on the technique. By the 18th century, Bandhani bandanas were being exported to Europe via the English East India Company.
Today, an estimated 15,000 women are engaged in Bandhani production in Kutch alone, the majority working from home, tying cloth into traditional designs in Mandvi, Bhuj, Anjar, and Abdasa. The Khatri community remains the hereditary custodian of the craft in Gujarat. The patterns are not decorative choices. They are a language. The item types Khombi, Gharchola, Chandrakhani, Shikari, Chowkidaar, Ambadaal, each communicate something specific: marital status, occasion, community of origin. A trained eye reads a Bandhani dupatta the way a trained ear reads a raga.
None of this is in the product description.
Meanwhile, In Milan
The language of global fashion has a remarkably efficient vocabulary for making specific things general. Bandhani becomes tie-dye. Zardozi becomes metallic embroidery. Mirror work becomes mirror detailing or, in a particularly confident season, reflective embellishment. Ikat, where the pattern is dyed into the thread before weaving begins, requiring the maker to hold the entire design in memory before a single warp is set becomes artisanal weave, or simply, printed.
Kolhapuri chappals, hand-stitched leather sandals from Kolhapur and Sangli, with a documented history and a GI Tag, became "artisanal leather sandals with traditional detailing" in a recent Prada collection. Acknowledgement arrived after public pressure. It was brief.
This Is Not a New Problem. It Is a Very Old One With a New Price Tag.
The British colonial textile economy ran on a specific mechanism: extract the raw material, eliminate the local market, manufacture elsewhere, sell back. Lancashire mills did not destroy the Indian handloom industry because British cloth was superior, it was not. They destroyed it through tariff structures that made Indian textiles non-competitive in their own country, while British machine-made fabric flooded the market. Dacca muslin, called woven air, so fine that a full sari could pass through a finger ring, requiring years of training and specific conditions found only in a particular district of Bengal, was effectively killed by the mid-19th century. The market collapsed. The weavers dispersed. The technique was lost. Not through force, but through economics.
What is happening now is different in mechanism and recognisable in effect. No tariffs required. The craft is not being destroyed. It is being borrowed, stripped of context, and returned to market at a price the original maker cannot charge, for an audience the original maker cannot reach, under a name that erases the original maker entirely. The craft survives. The knowledge survives. The credit does not travel with it.
What The Numbers Actually Say
India's handicraft exports (excluding hand-knotted carpets) reached ₹33,122.79 crore in FY 2024–25, up from ₹20,082.53 crore in 2014–15, a growth of over 65 per cent in a decade. The United States remains the largest buyer, accounting for approximately 37 per cent of all Indian handicraft exports. The Indian handicrafts market as a whole, domestic and export, was valued at US $4.56 billion in 2024, and is projected to reach US $8.19 billion by 2033. Key export categories in 2024–25: woodware (₹8,524 crore), embroidered and crocheted goods (₹4,350 crore), art metalwares (₹4,386 crore), handprinted textiles (₹3,217 crore). ₹3,217 crore worth of it, leaving India every year. Arriving somewhere else with a different name.
The Word "Inspired"
Inspired is doing an enormous amount of work in contemporary fashion copy. It is, legally speaking, a very safe word. It acknowledges influence without claiming it. It gestures towards a source without naming it. It allows a brand to carry the cultural weight of a centuries-old tradition while remaining, for all commercial and legal purposes, entirely original.
India currently holds 318 GI-registered handicraft products, across approximately 455 formally classified craft categories. A GI Tag establishes that a product called a specific name can only be made in a specific place, in a specific way. Bandhani is GI-registered. Kolhapuri chappal is GI-registered. Banarasi silk, Mysore silk, Pochampally Ikat, all registered. A GI Tag protects the name. Only the name.
What This Is Actually About
It would be easy to frame this as a story about exploitation. It is also incomplete. The deeper issue is not attribution. It is documentation. When a craft has no accessible record, no written history, no documented technique, no named tradition in the public domain, it can be borrowed without cultural consequence because there is nothing to point to. "This is Bandhani. Here is its history in Kutch. Here is the Khatri community that developed it. Here is what each item type means and who wears it and when." That sentence, fully formed and publicly accessible, changes the conversation. Not legally. But culturally, entirely.
The archive is the argument. Not a legal brief. Not a complaint. A document. A document that says: this thing has a name, a history, a people, and a geography. It existed long before it was "inspired."
The Fuss, Precisely
The fuss is not about Ralph Lauren making a skirt. The fuss is about what it means when a technique documented since the 12th century, practised by an estimated 15,000 women in Kutch today, that fed families, encoded community identity, survived colonial disruption, and is still practised in the same region by the same communities, arrives in the global market as "vibrant tie-dye detailing" at a price that has nothing to do with the knowledge inside it. The fuss is that India exported ₹3,217 crore worth of handprinted textiles last year, and the artisan who made the original pattern being referenced still earns by the metre.
The fuss is that this has been happening for two hundred years, and the only thing that has changed is that now the skirt has a product page.
The Living Archive documents Indian craft, culture, and tradition, as it exists, as it is practised, as it has always been.
References
Alfred Bühler, Eberhard Fischer and Marie-Louise Nabholz, Indian Tie-Dyed Fabrics,Indian Tie-Dyed Fabrics, Calico Museum of Textiles, Ahmedabad, 1983.
Wikipedia
Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Handicrafts at the Heart of India's Rural Economy,Handicrafts at the Heart of India's Rural Economy, November 2025. PIB Release PRID 2200859.
Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts via IBEF, Indian Handicrafts Industry,Indian Handicrafts Industry, 2024.
Comments