We like to believe we are a civilisation that respects women and celebrates the feminine. We worship goddesses, proudly invoke the Kamasutra, admire the sculptures of Khajuraho and Konark and speak of the richness and openness of Hinduism.Yet, a woman wearing a sleeveless top is enough to make us uncomfortable.That is what the recent Raksha Bandhan controversy exposes. We are still a deeply patriarchal society that believes a woman’s dignity and morality can be judged by her clothes. We continue to police what women wear, how they look and how they present themselves, while conveniently ignoring the men who make, approve and profit from these choices.We have not stopped policing women. We have only found new ways of doing it.Patriarchy under the guise of ‘feminism’A woman wears a sleeveless top in an advertisement. The internet calls it an ‘undergarment.’ The brand deletes the advertisement. Television channels erupt into primetime debates. Social media splits into ideological camps. And somewhere, in this manufactured outrage, Raksha Bandhan – a festival meant to celebrate love, trust and protection between siblings – is reduced to a national argument on whether a woman’s shoulders are ‘too visible.’Giva’s Raksha Bandhan ad, featuring actor Kriti Sanon, was pulled down within a day after her outfit drew outrage online, much of which was amplified by BJP MP Kangana Ranaut. Calling herself a ‘proud Sanatani,’ Ranaut questioned why someone would tie a rakhi while wearing “a bikini or an undergarment,” describing the advertisement as “intentionally creepy.“The irony is impossible to miss. In the very same post, she celebrated today’s woman as a ‘global woman’. Apparently, a woman can be global, but only until she exercises the freedom that being global actually promises.The tragedy is not that people disliked an advertisement. Everyone has the right to dislike creative choices. They can say the outfit does not suit their idea of Raksha Bandhan. They can choose not to watch it. But reducing a woman’s clothing to an ‘undergarment’ in order to publicly shame her is not cultural criticism. It is moral policing. And when that policing comes from another woman, it does not become feminism. It is merely patriarchy wearing a different face.What makes Ranaut’s criticism even more revealing is her background in the film industry. She knows exactly how advertisements are made. Actors do not single-handedly decide on costumes. A campaign passes through creative directors, costume designers, producers, photographers, marketing executives and brand approvals before reaching the public. Yet, none of those people became the subject of the outrage. The woman standing in front of the camera was singled out as the only ‘accused.’ That is precisely how patriarchy functions. When culture feels ‘threatened’, it looks for a woman’s body to restore order.Weaponising culture to police womenThe argument offered by critics is equally revealing. They claim that such clothes may be ‘acceptable’ in films like Cocktail 2, but not during a Hindu festival. That argument collapses on itself the moment one looks at Hinduism. This is the land of the Kamasutra. This is the civilisation whose temples at Khajuraho, Konark and countless other places celebrated the human body without embarrassment, centuries before much of the world abandoned puritanical ideas about sexuality. This is a faith where goddesses have been imagined in countless forms – adorned, unadorned, fierce, maternal, ascetic and sensual. Hinduism has never survived because it imposed uniformity. It survived because it absorbed diversity.Sanon, in an Instagram story, responded with a sentence that should have ended this debate immediately: “The essence of festivals is not in the clothes you wear, it is in the emotions and meaning you hold for the traditions…When will we stop telling women what to wear?…Culture and traditions are in the heart, not in a woman’s neckline.”Exactly. Why does a woman’s dignity continue to revolve around fabric? Why is character measured through sleeves? Why is morality stitched into necklines? India’s own history tells a different story. For centuries, women across different communities dressed differently. Customs changed across regions, castes and climates. There was never one ‘sacred blouse’ approved by Hinduism. Yet, even today, women are told that respecting a tradition also implies dressing according to someone else’s comfort. But that is not tradition – that is control.The inherent hypocrisyThe hypocrisy becomes even clearer when one looks at the men in the advertisement. Their clothes were hardly ‘traditional Indian attire.’ Yet nobody questioned whether their outfits respected and represented the Hindu culture. Nobody suggested that their character reflected badly on the festival. Then came another bizarre objection – how could a pet dog also receive a rakhi? Really? At this point, it feels like outrage itself has become the festival. Families celebrate traditions differently. Same goes for Raksha Bandhan. Some tie rakhi to cousins. Some tie them to friends. Some tie them to soldiers. Some include pets they consider family. An advertisement imagines possibilities. That is literally what creativity is supposed to do. Something does not become meaningless simply because it does not resemble the traditions someone has embedded in their own imagination.Perhaps the most disturbing part of this entire episode is not the outrage itself but what our public discourse chooses to prioritise. Turn on mainstream television media and panels spend hours dissecting Sanon’s neckline. Prime time anchors ask whether her outfit was ‘appropriate’. What does it say about our priorities that a woman’s blouse generates more national outrage than a convicted rapist repeatedly walking out of prison, even temporarily? Where is this moral energy when women die because of dowry harassment? Where is the outrage when survivors wait years for justice? Where are these debates when girls are forced to abandon education?Where is this cultural anxiety when women are denied careers because their in-laws refuse to let them work? Why are a woman’s shoulders more offensive than violence against women themselves?Perhaps, it is because policing women is easier than confronting power.The price of corporate cowardiceAnd then came the brand’s predictable surrender. Giva said it has removed the advertisement “out of respect for sentiments.” Whose sentiments? Advertisements do not accidentally appear online. They pass through brainstorming sessions, costume fittings, legal reviews and marketing approvals. Every frame is discussed before release.If the brand believed in its campaign enough to publish it, what changed within 24 hours? Nothing, except that the trolling became louder than the conviction.The greatest irony is that this controversy arrives around Raksha Bandhan, a festival with protection at its emotional core. Nevertheless, in this episode, the woman needed protection from public humiliation, selective outrage and corporate cowardice. She received none.The real danger to Indian society is not Sanon’s outfit, nor is it a dog receiving a rakhi. It is not creative freedom either. The real danger is a mindset so rigid that it mistakes control for culture, policing for protection and outrage for morality. A civilisation that once celebrated plurality now finds itself conducting national trials over women’s necklines. And unless we challenge that mindset, we will keep pretending to protect our traditions while quietly abandoning the very openness that made them worth protecting in the first place.Rashmi Koti is the Managing Editor of Andolana, a daily newspaper based in Mysuru, Karnataka.