Recently, Western fashion brands have been alleged to adopt the South Asian ‘Dupatta’ as ‘Scandinavian scarves’. The speculation has raised concerns by the South Asian community, showing resentment over cultural appropriation and rebranding it as “European” and “Classy”. The questions sparked as previously South Asian women embracing Desi or cultural apparel were labelled “too ethnic” or “too modest”.
When the European or the West adopted it, the style transformed into “Minimalistic” and “Chic”. The disparity among concepts enraged the South Asian community when the West failed to mention the term “inspired by South Asian culture”.
The Controversy: Scandinavian Scarf or Dupatta?
The fallout controversy between “Scandinavian scarf” and “Dupatta” emerged when a US-based fashion rental company, “Bipty,” shared a TikTok explaining European summer style. While draping a sheer scarf around her chest, she said, “The vibe, the aura, what is it? It’s very European, it’s very classy.”
In response, Meghana, an Indian American TikTok user, exclaimed, “The vibe is Desi, the aura is South Asian. That’s a dupatta, that’s a chunni.” Followed by the controversy, many South Asian TikTok users and influencers addressed the issue of cultural recognition. Slamming the European fashion aesthetics to adopt “Dupatta,” an essential element of traditional South Asian attire, and labelling it “Scandinavian Scarf.”
Capitalist Profiting from Marginalized Culture
The backlash has not only voiced against cultural appropriation but also mentioned how capitalism exploits marginalized cultures for profit. The narrative of once “uncivilized” fashion choices has now become trendy and chic. The West has an enduring history of borrowing culture from South Asia and labelling it ‘modern’.
Audience remains in discomfort over how seamlessly Europeans steal cultural identity, wear it, and claim it to be something else. The dupatta is clearly not a “Scandinavian scarf”.
The controversy surrounding the “Scandinavian scarf” reveals deeper wounds than just fashion missteps — it exposes a persistent disregard for cultural origins when convenient for Western aesthetics.
Why is it that South Asian women wearing a dupatta were once dismissed as “too ethnic,” yet when rebranded in Europe, the same fabric becomes “chic” and “minimalist”?
At what point does appreciation turn into exploitation, and who decides when a culture is finally “acceptable” — only once it is stripped of its roots? If true respect for global fashion exists, then why are the voices and histories of marginalized communities continually erased in the process?
The backlash is not a rejection of cultural exchange — it is a plea for honesty, acknowledgment, and dignity. Can the West truly appreciate what it so eagerly borrows, without rewriting its identity?
