Kareena Kapoor Khan was asked about on-screen clothing choices amid the debate surrounding Kriti Sanon’s Raksha Bandhan advertisement. The actor appeared reluctant to address the question directly, while filmmaker Meghna Gulzar stressed that costumes should be understood in the context of character and storytelling.
A question linked to the recent debate over Kriti Sanon’s Raksha Bandhan advertisement unexpectedly surfaced during the trailer launch of Daayra, bringing Kareena Kapoor Khan into a wider conversation about women, clothing and creative representation.
Kareena was asked whether she personally has any limits regarding what she would or would not wear on screen. The question appeared to reference the controversy surrounding Kriti’s appearance in a jewellery advertisement for Raksha Bandhan.
Before Kareena offered a detailed response, Daayra director Meghna Gulzar stepped in to address the issue from a filmmaker’s perspective.
See more of our coverage in your search results.
Add Hunterfly on GoogleMeghna argued that an actor’s costume cannot be separated from the character, the world of the film and the creative vision behind a project.
“Uss film mein ek female ka ya ek male ka kya character hai uss hisab se unko dress kiya jayega. It depends on the character. It depends on the director. It is unfair to ask this to one actor,” Meghna said at the event.
Her response shifted the discussion away from the personal choices of a single actor and towards a broader question: Should an actor’s on-screen clothing be judged independently, or should it be viewed within the context of the character and the story being told?
How the Kriti Sanon Advertisement Became a Talking Point
The controversy began after jewellery brand GIVA released a Raksha Bandhan campaign featuring Kriti Sanon.
The advertisement presented a contemporary interpretation of the festival and showed Kriti celebrating with her brother while also extending the celebration to a pet dog.
See more of our coverage in your search results.
Add Hunterfly on GoogleHer outfit became one of the central points of discussion online.
Kriti wore an Indo-Western ensemble featuring a bralette-style blouse, a cape and a draped skirt. While the campaign was designed around a modern visual interpretation, some social media users criticised the styling and questioned whether the outfit was appropriate for a festival associated with family traditions and cultural rituals.
The debate quickly expanded beyond the advertisement itself.
See more of our coverage in your search results.
Add Hunterfly on GoogleIt became part of a larger and familiar conversation about how women are judged for what they wear, particularly when clothing is linked to ideas of culture, tradition and public morality.
Kangana Ranaut Criticised the Advertisement
Actor Kangana Ranaut was among the prominent public figures who commented on the campaign.
In an Instagram Stories post, Kangana questioned the styling choices in the advertisement and criticised the visual presentation of the festival.
Her comments added further momentum to the discussion surrounding Kriti’s outfit and the campaign’s creative direction.
As reactions continued to circulate online, the advertisement became a flashpoint for sharply different views.
While some people objected to the styling, others defended the campaign as a contemporary interpretation of tradition and argued that an individual’s cultural connection should not be measured through clothing alone.
Kriti Sanon Responded to the Backlash
Kriti later addressed the criticism in a public response defending both the broader message of the campaign and a woman’s freedom to choose what she wears.
She wrote that the meaning of festivals lies in emotions and the values associated with traditions rather than in an individual’s clothing.
“The essence of festivals is not in the clothes you wear, it is in the emotions and meaning you hold for the traditions…” Kriti said.
She also addressed the recurring scrutiny surrounding women’s fashion and questioned why clothing continues to be used as a measure of cultural respect.
“Also, when will we stop telling women what to wear? Ethnic fashion has evolved over the years, but still a woman’s respect for her culture is measured by just her clothes!! Culture & traditions are in her heart, not in her neckline!” she wrote.
Kriti also explained the personal perspective behind the advertisement’s representation of Raksha Bandhan.
According to her, the festival’s promise of protection and care should not necessarily be limited to a traditional understanding of who can participate in the ritual.
She shared that she and her sister tie rakhi to each other and described the practice as an expression of mutual care and protection.
She further explained that, for her, the emotional meaning of family also extends to pets.
“Rakshabandhan is a bond of protection. My sister and I tie rakhi to each other. We know we can protect each other no less than a brother would have. We pray for each other’s health, happiness & long life. And for us, this prayer and promise extends to our dogs too! After all, they are family,” Kriti wrote.
GIVA Removed the Campaign Amid the Backlash
The jewellery brand eventually removed the Raksha Bandhan advertisement from circulation.
The decision generated another wave of discussion, with questions raised about whether the company had withdrawn its support for the campaign’s original message.
GIVA founder Ishendra Agarwal later issued a clarification explaining the company’s position.
According to Agarwal, there had been a perception that the brand had distanced itself from the campaign and its message following the criticism.
He said GIVA’s belief in the campaign’s underlying intention had not changed.
The founder explained that the campaign was developed in collaboration with Kriti and was intended to portray Raksha Bandhan through the broader themes of family, togetherness and emotional bonds.
However, he said the company decided to remove the advertisement after concerns emerged regarding incidents around some of its stores.
GIVA Founder Cited Employee and Store Safety
Agarwal explained that the company had to make a quick decision after the situation escalated in certain locations.
He cited incidents that were creating an unsafe environment for members of the company’s on-ground teams.
According to the clarification, employee and store safety became the company’s immediate priority.
Agarwal also referred to the financial realities facing the business, describing GIVA as a company that is still loss-making and explaining that the situation required a rapid response.
The clarification was important because it sought to distinguish between the decision to remove the campaign and the brand’s position on the creative message behind it.
In essence, GIVA maintained that its original intent remained unchanged while saying that practical safety concerns influenced the decision to withdraw the advertisement.
Meghna Gulzar Brings the Conversation Back to Context
It was against this backdrop that the question was raised at the Daayra trailer launch.
Kareena Kapoor Khan was asked whether she has personal boundaries about what she is willing or unwilling to wear on screen.
But Meghna Gulzar’s intervention introduced an important distinction.
An actor’s costume, she suggested, cannot automatically be treated as a standalone expression of the actor’s personal identity or values.
A costume exists within a larger creative framework.
A character may belong to a particular social environment, historical period or fictional world. Their appearance can communicate aspects of their personality, circumstances and role in the story.
The same principle applies to male and female performers.
Meghna’s argument was that the choice of clothing is connected to the demands of the character and the director’s creative vision.
Her response also questioned whether it was fair to turn a broader debate about costumes and representation into a question directed at one actor.
The Larger Debate: Clothing, Culture and Creative Freedom
The controversy surrounding the GIVA advertisement has once again highlighted how quickly conversations about clothing can develop into larger cultural debates.
On one side are those who believe that festivals and cultural traditions carry visual expectations that should be respected in public representations.
On the other side are those who argue that traditions evolve and that cultural identity cannot be reduced to an individual’s wardrobe choices.
Kriti’s response focused strongly on the second argument.
Her position was that personal clothing choices do not determine the depth of an individual’s cultural connection.
Meghna Gulzar’s comments, meanwhile, introduced another dimension to the debate: the difference between an actor and the character an actor is portraying.
This distinction is particularly relevant in cinema and advertising.
Actors routinely wear costumes that are selected not simply according to their personal preferences but according to the requirements of a screenplay, campaign concept, director or stylist.
Judging an actor’s personal beliefs solely through an on-screen outfit can therefore become complicated.
Why the Daayra Moment Is Being Discussed
Kareena Kapoor Khan’s hesitation to directly engage with the question and Meghna Gulzar’s subsequent intervention have drawn attention because they occurred while the Kriti Sanon controversy was already being widely discussed.
Meghna’s response effectively redirected the conversation towards the principles of character, context and filmmaking.
It also underlined a broader issue in the entertainment industry: public figures are often asked to give individual answers to debates that involve multiple creative and cultural perspectives.
Whether the subject is an advertisement, a film costume or a fashion choice, the question of context remains central.
For an actor, what appears on screen may be part of a fictional character.
For a brand, it may be part of a creative campaign.
For audiences, however, the same image can carry very different meanings depending on personal beliefs and cultural expectations.
What the Debate Ultimately Reveals
The discussion involving Kriti Sanon, GIVA, Kangana Ranaut, Kareena Kapoor Khan and Meghna Gulzar reflects a wider debate that extends beyond a single advertisement or public event.
At its centre are questions about cultural representation, artistic freedom, women’s clothing and the difference between personal identity and professional performance.
There may not be one universally accepted answer.
However, the debate has demonstrated how quickly a campaign’s visual choices can become part of a much larger conversation.
Kriti defended the campaign by arguing that culture and tradition are rooted in values rather than clothing.
GIVA maintained that its belief in the campaign’s original intention remained unchanged, while citing safety concerns as the reason for removing it.
And at the Daayra trailer launch, Meghna Gulzar offered another perspective: what an actor wears on screen should be understood through the character and the filmmaker’s vision rather than automatically treated as a reflection of the actor’s personal choices.
As public discussion around celebrity fashion and cultural representation continues, that distinction is likely to remain an important part of the conversation.
