Met Gala's Misstep: Cultural Respect or Fashion Faux Pas?

 

We all have been seeing met gala as just a stage for celebrities to flex their fashion and clout. But it's more then that.

The Met Gala began in 1948 by the PR queen Eleanor Lambert.



 It was initially conceived as a fundraising event for the Costume Institute, with the aim of supporting its exhibitions and acquisitions. Over time, it evolved into a high-profile fashion event. It was a high society eaffair and less "Hollywood", more new york elite.

For 2025 the theme for met was "Superfine: Tailoring Black Style". Bollywood stars like Shahrukh khan, Diljit Dosanjh, Kiara Advani, Sabyasachi Mukherjee, Manish Malhotra and many more were also Present in met this year.



What came in lime light was the Outfit of Diljit Dosanjh, honouring his Punjabi roots in a custom ivory ensemble by Prabal Gurung. The attire was resemble of a Punjabi Prince, complete with a turban, drape, and ceremonial sword case, evoking the aura of a modern-day Maharaja. 


Diljit was resembling a lot like Maharaja Bhupinder singh, and as per the New York Times noted that Diljit's stylist, Abhilasha Devnani, tried to borrow an iconic Cartier necklace (that originally belonged to Maharaja Bhupinder Singh) for the night but was told that 'it sits sealed in a museum'.



But in truth a part of that necklace was worn by Emma chamberlain, a white youtuber in 2022 for her met gala look, now to be fair when Emma chamberlain wore a part of that necklace in 2022, it was not just aesthetic choice it was actually a narrative that showed that Cartier (who actually owns the necklace) has found and reconstructed the necklace from a looted world, now made whole again by Cartier, not Punjab and not even India. 



Now if Diljit Dosanjh, an Indian artists, a Punjabi Brown Man, is allowed to wear that necklace that narrative would change, it would no longer be about Carrier's curatorial power. Because for Diljit it is not just about fashion and a piece of Jewelry, he's actually reclaiming and reviving a historical peice which has significance amongst his people. And if he would have worn it many questions would have arisen like, why was the necklace lost? Who stole it? Why did it need reconstitution? And these kind of questions are too political for any luxury brand like Cartier.

The necklace is more then just a decorative object, it's a material embodiment of memory, of colonial entanglement, of Indian royalty and most importantly of violent re-distribution of wealth and artifacts. 

The refusing to let Diljit wear this necklace is about preserving colonial narrative, that west curates and controls global Heritage and those who were colonized are kept as spectators and consumers for their own history.

To me, this reflects a museum gaze-the idea that artifacts are frozen in time, to be looked at, not interacted with. It's a Western approach to preservation that treats history as dead material, not a living dialogue. 


.... ✒️ PRAGATI SHARMA 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"The forest of Enchantments"

From Sunrise Hues to Moonlight Glow—Life’s Simple Charms Are Meant to Show

"Dead poet's society"