A festive jewellery advertisement.

An ivory outfit.

A Raksha Bandhan celebration involving family pets.

And within days, a campaign intended to promote jewellery had become part of a much larger argument about Indian culture, women’s clothing and who gets to decide what counts as respectful festival attire.

Bollywood actor Kriti Sanon became the centre of the controversy in August 2026 after appearing in a Raksha Bandhan campaign for jewellery brand GIVA.

In the advertisement, Sanon wore an ivory Indo-Western ensemble consisting of a bralette-style blouse, cape and draped skirt. The campaign also showed the celebration extending to a pet dog, reflecting the idea that animals can be considered members of the family.

Some social-media users objected to the outfit, arguing that it was inappropriate for a traditional festival.

Others questioned the concept of including a dog in the Raksha Bandhan ritual.

Still others defended Sanon and the campaign, arguing that neither a woman’s neckline nor a family's choice to include pets determines whether they respect a festival.

The debate grew intense enough that GIVA ultimately removed the advertisement.

But that did not end the discussion.

Sanon responded with a pointed message about culture and clothing, asking why women continue to be judged by what they wear.

Weeks later, another Instagram Story from the actor—this time addressing victim-blaming and sexual violence—again drew attention because of the earlier controversy.

The result was something far larger than a disagreement over advertising.

It became a debate over a question India has confronted many times before:

Can cultural respect be measured by a woman’s clothes?

What Was the Kriti Sanon GIVA Advertisement?

The advertisement was released as part of GIVA's Raksha Bandhan promotional campaign.

Sanon appeared in an ivory Indo-Western outfit featuring:

• a bralette-style blouse;
• a flowing cape;
• a draped skirt;
• jewellery from the brand.

The commercial presented Raksha Bandhan as a celebration of protection and affection extending beyond the conventional brother-sister relationship.

Pets were included in that idea of family.

GIVA later explained that this was intentional: the campaign had sought to broaden the celebration to include animals people consider part of their households.

What might otherwise have been an ordinary festive campaign quickly became controversial.

Why Did the Advertisement Receive Backlash?

Two elements attracted most of the criticism.

The first was Sanon's clothing.

Some users argued that the bralette-style blouse was too revealing for a campaign associated with an Indian religious and cultural festival.

Terms such as “inappropriate” and “disrespectful” circulated in criticism of the advertisement.

The second point involved the campaign's treatment of pets.

Some critics objected to extending the rakhi ritual to a dog, while supporters argued that families are free to express affection and protection in ways meaningful to them.

The disagreement therefore involved several separate issues:

traditional dress, evolving ethnic fashion, festival symbolism, pets as family members and women's bodily autonomy.

What began as a fashion argument rapidly became something much more ideological.

GIVA Withdrew the Advertisement

On August 26, 2026, GIVA confirmed that it had withdrawn the campaign.

The company said it had deep respect for Indian culture, traditions and festivals and explained that its intention had been to celebrate the occasion with the entire family—including pets.

It added that causing offence had not been the campaign's intention and said it was removing the advertisement out of respect for people whose sentiments had been hurt.

Importantly, the brand did not argue that Sanon's clothing was objectively inappropriate.

Its statement focused instead on the public reaction and the intention behind the campaign.

That distinction matters.

The advertisement was withdrawn because of the controversy surrounding it, not because GIVA issued a judgment declaring a particular style of clothing culturally unacceptable.

Kriti Sanon Had Already Defended Her Outfit

Reports from the time indicate that Sanon responded to the criticism on August 25, before GIVA publicly confirmed the withdrawal the following day.

Her response challenged the assumption that cultural respect should be judged primarily through clothing.

Sanon argued that the meaning of Raksha Bandhan lies in the emotional promise of protection rather than a specific dress code.

She also explained that she and her sister tie rakhi to one another because they believe the responsibility to protect each other does not depend on having a brother.

That point broadened the debate considerably.

Instead of defending only one fashion choice, Sanon questioned a traditional assumption about who participates in Raksha Bandhan and why.

“Culture & Traditions Are in Her Heart, Not in Her Neckline”

The most widely circulated part of Sanon's response was her challenge to the policing of women's clothing.

She asked when society would stop telling women what to wear and argued that ethnic fashion has changed over time.

Her conclusion was especially direct:

“Culture & Traditions are in her heart, not in her neckline!”

That sentence effectively transformed the incident from a celebrity fashion controversy into a conversation about women's autonomy.

It asked whether a woman's relationship with her culture can really be inferred from how much of her body is visible.

The Outfit Was Indo-Western, Not Western Everyday Clothing

Another detail sometimes lost in social-media arguments is that Sanon was not wearing ordinary beachwear or lingerie in isolation.

The campaign styled her in an Indo-Western festive ensemble.

The controversial element was the bralette-style blouse.

But it was combined with a draped skirt, cape and jewellery in a deliberately festive look.

Whether someone personally finds that appropriate for Raksha Bandhan is a matter of taste and cultural interpretation.

But describing the outfit simply as underwear removes the styling context in which it appeared.

Fashion Associated With Indian Festivals Has Never Been Completely Static

One reason the controversy became so divisive is that “traditional clothing” sounds like a fixed category when it rarely is.

Indian fashion has continually changed.

Blouse cuts change.

Draping changes.

Fabrics change.

Hemlines change.

Cinema influences fashion.

Regional clothing styles influence one another.

Designers reinterpret older silhouettes.

Contemporary festive fashion now frequently combines:

• lehengas with crop tops;
• saris with unconventional blouses;
• jackets with traditional embroidery;
• capes with Indian draping;
• corset-inspired tops with ethnic skirts.

The disagreement surrounding Sanon's outfit therefore was not simply between “traditional clothes” and “Western clothes.”

It reflected an ongoing argument over how far traditional aesthetics can evolve while still being recognized as culturally appropriate.

Raksha Bandhan Itself Is About a Symbolic Bond

Sanon's response also emphasized the symbolic meaning of the festival.

Raksha Bandhan traditionally centers on the rakhi and a bond of affection and protection, most commonly between sisters and brothers.

But families have long adapted celebrations according to their own relationships.

Sanon said she and her sister tie rakhi to each other because both believe they can protect one another just as effectively as a brother could.

She also said that the same wishes for health, happiness and long life extend to their dogs because they regard them as family.

That explanation helps clarify why pets appeared in the GIVA campaign.

It was not presented simply as an animal performing a human ritual.

The campaign was playing with the idea that the emotional meaning of protection can extend beyond conventional family roles.

Why Did the Pet Element Also Become Controversial?

Festival symbolism can carry very different meanings for different people.

For some viewers, tying rakhi to a pet is simply affectionate.

For others, it feels like a trivialization of a traditional sibling ritual.

Neither reaction can be understood purely through fashion.

That is why the controversy became unusually broad.

Several overlapping questions were being argued simultaneously:

Is Raksha Bandhan limited to brother-sister relationships?

Can sisters tie rakhi to one another?

Can pets be included symbolically?

What constitutes appropriate festive clothing?

How much freedom should advertisers have when reinterpreting traditions?

When all of those questions become compressed into one short advertisement, social media can turn the campaign into a cultural battleground very quickly.

The Ad Was Pulled, but Sanon Did Not Withdraw Her Argument

The most notable aspect of the aftermath was that the brand and its celebrity ambassador effectively took different approaches.

GIVA responded institutionally.

It acknowledged the controversy and removed the advertisement.

Sanon responded personally.

She defended the broader principles behind the campaign.

She did not apologize for wearing the outfit.

She did not accept the premise that cultural respect should be determined by neckline.

Instead, she questioned that premise directly.

That difference illustrates the pressures involved in modern advertising.

A company may decide that withdrawing a campaign is the quickest way to reduce reputational risk.

An individual celebrity has greater freedom to continue debating the underlying issue.

Then Came Another Cryptic Instagram Story

The controversy resurfaced in late September when Sanon shared another Instagram Story.

This time, she reposted a short message addressing victim-blaming in cases of sexual assault.

The quote contrasted a short skirt, a burqa and a diaper to make the point that victims' clothing cannot explain or justify sexual violence.

The Indian Express described the post as cryptic because Sanon did not explicitly say it was about the GIVA controversy.

That distinction is important.

It appeared after the clothing debate, so the connection was easy for media outlets and readers to make.

But Sanon herself did not explicitly identify the Raksha Bandhan advertisement as the subject of the post.

The Instagram Story is therefore better understood as a broader statement against victim-blaming rather than a confirmed second response to GIVA.

The Follow-Up Post Addressed a Much More Serious Issue

There is also a danger in treating the second post merely as celebrity drama.

Victim-blaming is fundamentally different from arguing over whether an outfit suits a festival advertisement.

The message Sanon reposted was making a specific point:

sexual violence occurs against people wearing many different kinds of clothing, including clothing considered highly modest.

Therefore, clothing cannot reasonably be treated as the cause of assault.

That argument shifts responsibility away from victims and toward perpetrators.

The timing meant it naturally echoed the earlier discussion over women's clothing.

But the subject itself was significantly broader.

Why Clothing Becomes Such a Powerful Cultural Symbol

Clothing rarely functions only as fabric.

It can communicate:

• religion;
• class;
• gender;
• profession;
• region;
• rebellion;
• belonging;
• modesty;
• status.

That makes clothing particularly sensitive during festivals.

People may interpret a festive outfit not simply as an individual's fashion choice but as a statement about the tradition itself.

The problem arises when those symbolic expectations are imposed unevenly.

Women in particular are frequently expected to carry visible markers of cultural respect through:

• modesty;
• dress;
• jewellery;
• hairstyle;
• behavior.

Sanon's argument challenged precisely that expectation.

Her position was that cultural commitment should be measured by what someone believes and practices rather than the amount of skin their clothes reveal.

Why Celebrity Fashion Controversies Spread So Quickly

The mechanics of social media intensify disputes like this.

An advertisement may take minutes to watch.

An image from it takes one second to repost.

Once removed from the original context, the image becomes a symbol onto which people project entirely different arguments.

One group sees:

a modern festive outfit.

Another sees:

disrespect toward tradition.

Another sees:

moral policing of a woman.

Another sees:

a brand deliberately courting controversy.

Very quickly, discussion of the actual product disappears.

Few people were debating jewellery by the end of the GIVA controversy.

The clothing became the campaign.

Did GIVA’s Withdrawal Mean the Critics “Won”?

That interpretation is too simple.

The practical outcome is clear:

GIVA withdrew the advertisement after receiving criticism.

But culturally, the withdrawal did not end the disagreement.

In fact, it arguably gave the discussion more visibility.

The controversy generated extensive coverage across major Indian publications and prolonged debate over:

• cultural expectations;
• women's clothing;
• advertising;
• traditional celebrations.

Withdrawing an advertisement removes the content from official circulation.

It does not remove screenshots, clips or public discussion from the internet.

Modern advertising controversies often become substantially more visible after a campaign is pulled.

Was Kriti Sanon Criticized by Everyone?

No.

Descriptions such as “the internet was furious” can make online controversies sound more unanimous than they really are.

Reports documented substantial criticism.

They also documented people defending Sanon's right to wear the outfit and criticizing attempts to police women's clothing.

Social media rarely represents one unified public opinion.

It amplifies strong reactions.

The more accurate description is:

a significant section of users criticized the campaign, while others defended Sanon and challenged the criticism.

That distinction matters when discussing any viral controversy.

Should a Brand Withdraw an Advertisement Because People Are Offended?

There is no universal answer.

Brands constantly balance:

• creative freedom;
• commercial objectives;
• audience expectations;
• reputation;
• cultural sensitivity.

One company may defend controversial creative work.

Another may decide that continuing the campaign is not worth the conflict.

GIVA chose withdrawal.

Its statement framed that decision around respect for the people who felt offended rather than a repudiation of the campaign's original message.

From a communications perspective, this was a classic risk-management response.

From a cultural perspective, however, it raised another question:

Does withdrawing controversial advertising encourage future pressure campaigns?

That debate extends far beyond this single advertisement.

The Controversy Revealed a Tension Between Tradition and Personal Expression

This is ultimately why the story attracted so much attention.

Both sides were talking about values.

Critics framed their objections around respect for tradition.

Sanon's response framed her defence around emotional meaning, equality and personal choice.

Those values do not necessarily have to conflict.

A person can care deeply about tradition while supporting modern fashion.

Someone else can prefer conservative festive dress without believing everyone should dress identically.

The confrontation happens when personal preference becomes a demand governing someone else's body.

That is where Sanon's question—when will society stop telling women what to wear?—became the central issue.

Women’s Clothing Is Often Asked to Carry More Meaning Than Men’s

The debate also exposed an asymmetry familiar from many public controversies.

Women's clothing is often interpreted morally.

A neckline becomes evidence of values.

A skirt becomes evidence of character.

A blouse becomes evidence of whether someone respects tradition.

Men's festive clothing certainly attracts fashion commentary.

But it less frequently becomes a referendum on cultural virtue.

Sanon's response directly challenged that connection between female clothing and moral respectability.

Whether audiences agreed with her specific outfit or not, that broader question resonated far beyond one jewellery advertisement.

Ethnic Fashion Is Constantly Being Reinvented

The controversy may also reflect changing expectations within India's fashion industry.

Contemporary designers routinely mix traditional techniques with silhouettes drawn from global fashion.

Modern ethnic collections include:

• structured bustiers;
• bralettes;
• cape blouses;
• pre-draped saris;
• asymmetrical skirts;
• trouser-sari combinations;
• corset-inspired cholis.

Many of these styles would have seemed unconventional in earlier decades.

Some eventually become normal.

Fashion evolves partly through exactly this process:

something initially looks unfamiliar;

people debate it;

designers repeat it;

audiences adapt;

the boundary of what counts as traditional shifts again.

Sanon's outfit existed within that contemporary design world.

Whether people liked it is separate from whether it belonged to modern Indian fashion.

Why the Controversy Became Bigger Than Kriti Sanon

Celebrity controversies often become proxies for arguments society was already having.

Sanon did not create debates around:

women's clothing,

modesty,

religious festivals,

changing traditions,

or pets as family.

Those conversations already existed.

The advertisement simply brought several of them together in one highly visible image.

That is why reactions became so intense.

People were rarely arguing only about Kriti Sanon.

They were arguing about their own definition of culture.

The Timing of Her Later Post Matters—but So Does Caution

Sanon's September 29 Instagram Story arrived approximately a month after the GIVA controversy.

Because it addressed clothing and victim-blaming, publications naturally connected it with the earlier dispute.

But calling it definitively a second attack on critics would go beyond what she actually said.

She shared a general message.

She did not identify GIVA.

She did not identify particular critics.

She did not say the Story was intended as a continuation of the Raksha Bandhan argument.

That nuance is important in celebrity reporting.

Timing can suggest context.

It does not always prove motive.

What Exactly Happened? The Timeline

The central events can be summarized clearly.

The GIVA campaign appears

Sanon features in a Raksha Bandhan jewellery advertisement wearing an ivory Indo-Western ensemble and participating in a celebration that also includes pets.

Social-media criticism grows

Some users criticize the bralette-style blouse as inappropriate for the festival, while others object to the pet-related concept. Other users defend the campaign.

August 25, 2026: Sanon responds

She argues that festivals are defined by emotional meaning rather than clothing and questions why women's respect for culture is judged through their outfits.

August 26, 2026: GIVA withdraws the ad

The brand says it respects Indian culture and did not intend to hurt sentiments, then confirms that the campaign has been withdrawn from media.

September 29, 2026: Sanon shares a victim-blaming post

She reposts a message arguing that sexual violence cannot be blamed on victims' clothing. She does not explicitly identify the GIVA controversy as the subject.

That is the documented sequence.

The Bottom Line

Kriti Sanon's Raksha Bandhan advertisement for GIVA became controversial in August 2026 after some social-media users objected to the actor's ivory Indo-Western outfit, particularly its bralette-style blouse.

The campaign also attracted discussion because it extended the symbolism of Raksha Bandhan to family pets.

Sanon defended the campaign's broader interpretation of the festival.

She explained that she and her sister tie rakhi to one another because the promise of protection does not require a brother, and she said their pets are also considered family.

Most pointedly, she rejected the idea that a woman's cultural respect should be measured through her clothing.

On August 26, GIVA withdrew the advertisement, saying the company had not intended to hurt sentiments and emphasizing its respect for Indian traditions.

Then, on September 29, Sanon shared a separate Instagram Story addressing victim-blaming and the idea that women's clothing can be blamed for sexual assault. The post did not explicitly mention GIVA, although its timing caused it to be discussed alongside the earlier controversy.

So what began as a jewellery advertisement ultimately became a much broader cultural argument.

Not really about ivory fabric.

Not really about a blouse.

And barely about jewellery at all.

The deeper disagreement concerned who gets to define respect for tradition—and whether a woman's clothing should be used as evidence of that respect.

GIVA chose to remove the advertisement.

Kriti Sanon chose not to retreat from her central argument.

For her, the meaning of Raksha Bandhan lies in the promise behind the ritual.

And culture, as she put it, belongs in a person's heart—not in the measurement of her neckline.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the Kriti Sanon GIVA controversy?

Kriti Sanon appeared in a Raksha Bandhan advertisement for jewellery brand GIVA that drew criticism from some social-media users over her outfit and the campaign's inclusion of pets.

What was Kriti Sanon wearing in the advertisement?

She wore an ivory Indo-Western ensemble featuring a bralette-style blouse, cape and draped skirt.

Why did people criticize Kriti Sanon’s outfit?

Some users argued that the revealing blouse was inappropriate for a campaign associated with a traditional Indian festival.

Was everyone against the advertisement?

No. Other users defended Sanon's clothing choice and criticized attempts to police what women wear.

Why was a dog involved in the GIVA advertisement?

GIVA said the campaign was intended to extend the celebration to pets as members of the family.

Did Kriti Sanon tie rakhi to a dog?

The campaign included pets within its Raksha Bandhan theme, reflecting the idea that pets can be part of the family's bond of affection and protection.

Did Kriti Sanon defend the advertisement?

Yes. She publicly defended its interpretation of Raksha Bandhan and challenged criticism of her clothing.

What did Kriti Sanon say about Raksha Bandhan?

She said the festival's essence lies in its emotions and meaning and explained that she and her sister tie rakhi to each other because they can protect one another regardless of gender.

What did Kriti Sanon say about women’s clothes?

She questioned why women continue to be told what to wear and argued that respect for culture should not be measured through clothing.

Did Kriti Sanon say “culture is in her heart, not in her neckline”?

Yes. That line became the most widely reported part of her response.

Did GIVA remove the advertisement?

Yes. GIVA confirmed on August 26, 2026 that it had withdrawn the campaign from media.

Why did GIVA remove the advertisement?

The brand said it did not intend to hurt anyone's sentiments and withdrew the campaign out of respect for sections of the public that had been offended.

Did GIVA apologize?

Its public statement expressed regret that the campaign had inadvertently hurt sentiments and emphasized the company's respect for Indian culture and traditions.

Did GIVA say Kriti Sanon’s outfit was inappropriate?

No. The company's public statement focused on audience sentiment and its original intention rather than declaring the clothing itself inappropriate.

Did Kriti Sanon respond before or after the ad was removed?

Contemporary reports indicate that Sanon responded to critics on August 25, while GIVA publicly confirmed the withdrawal on August 26.

What did Kriti Sanon post later about victim-blaming?

On September 29, she reposted an Instagram Story arguing that sexual assault cannot be explained or justified by what a victim wears.

Was that later post definitely about the GIVA controversy?

No. Media reports connected the timing with the earlier clothing controversy, but Sanon did not explicitly say the post was directed at GIVA or the critics of the advertisement.

Why did the later Instagram Story receive attention?

Because it addressed clothing and victim-blaming shortly after Sanon had been publicly criticized over her own outfit.

What is the difference between the two controversies?

The GIVA dispute concerned cultural expectations and festive clothing. The later Instagram Story addressed the much broader and more serious issue of blaming victims of sexual violence for what they wear.

Was Kriti Sanon’s outfit traditional?

It was best described as Indo-Western festive fashion—combining an Indian-style draped skirt and jewellery with a contemporary bralette-style blouse and cape.

Why did the controversy become so large?

Because it combined several emotionally charged subjects: Indian tradition, women's clothing, Raksha Bandhan, changing festival practices, pets as family and celebrity advertising.

Is there an official dress code for Raksha Bandhan?

No single universal dress code governs how people must dress for Raksha Bandhan. Clothing varies substantially according to family, region, personal preference and contemporary fashion.

Can sisters tie rakhi to each other?

Families increasingly interpret Raksha Bandhan in different ways, and Sanon specifically said that she and her sister tie rakhi to each other as a mutual promise of protection.

Can people tie rakhi to pets?

That is a personal or family practice rather than a universal traditional requirement. GIVA's campaign deliberately included pets because the brand said it wanted to extend the celebration to animals considered part of the family.

Did the controversy end after GIVA removed the advertisement?

No. Discussion continued over women's clothing, evolving traditions and whether brands should withdraw campaigns in response to online outrage.

What is the most accurate summary of the controversy?

Kriti Sanon's GIVA Raksha Bandhan campaign was criticized by some social-media users over her bralette-style festive outfit and its inclusion of pets. Sanon defended both personal clothing choices and a broader interpretation of the festival. GIVA then withdrew the advertisement, while Sanon continued publicly challenging the idea that women's cultural respect should be judged by their clothes.

The campaign disappeared.

The argument it started did not.