Veteran Indian fashion designer Ritu Kumar has come under intense criticism after claiming she coined the term “zardozi” during an exhibition in the 1980s. The remark was made during an appearance on The Masoom Minawala Show, where Kumar said the word did not exist before she combined the Persian words “zar” and “dozi” to describe her collection. The statement quickly went viral, drawing widespread backlash from historians, textile enthusiasts, artisans and social media users, who argued that the term has existed for centuries.
The controversy centres on the long and well-documented history of zardozi, one of South Asia’s most celebrated embroidery traditions. Linguistically, the word is of Persian origin, derived from “zar,” meaning gold, and “dozi,” meaning embroidery or stitching, literally translating to “gold embroidery.” Textile historians trace documented use of the term to the Delhi Sultanate era, with the earliest known written reference appearing in the Futuhat-i-Firozshahi, the 14th-century memoirs of Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq, credited by textile scholars with being the first text to record the word “zardozi.” A further reference appears in the Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, the 17th-century memoirs of Mughal emperor Jahangir, which describes gold-embroidered ceremonial robes, alongside the Ain-i-Akbari‘s own account of zardozi under Akbar’s court.
The craft reached its artistic peak under the Mughal Empire, particularly during Akbar’s reign in the 16th century, becoming synonymous with royal courts and adorning imperial garments, ceremonial tents, horse trappings and palace furnishings. As the Mughal Empire’s influence extended across the subcontinent, the craft and its name took firm root in what is now Pakistan, particularly in Sindh, where cities like Hyderabad and Karachi developed their own zardozi traditions. Regions such as Sindh and Balochistan also produced closely related metal-thread and mirror-work embroideries, and zardozi remains a cornerstone of Pakistani bridal and formal wear today, practiced by artisan communities who trace their craft lineage back generations.
A concrete English-language record further undercuts Kumar’s account. John Forbes Watson’s The Textile Manufactures and the Costumes of the People of India, an 18-volume catalogue of Indian fabric samples compiled for the India Office and published in 1866, is held today by institutions including the Harris Museum & Art Gallery in Preston. A gold-thread piece from that 1866 collection is catalogued and described as decorated with “zardozi,” tracing the term to the same Persian roots Kumar described as her own invention. Given Kumar was born in 1944, the claim of a 1980s coinage sits uneasily against a term already in documented use in colonial-era textile records decades earlier.
Textile scholars note that zardozi continued to evolve across present-day India, Pakistan, Iran and Central Asia, with each region developing distinctive styles while preserving the same Persian-derived name.
Following Kumar’s comments, social media users accused the designer of rewriting textile history. Many pointed out that zardozi has been part of the region’s artistic and cultural heritage for generations, with artisans practicing the craft long before the emergence of contemporary fashion labels. Others criticized the podcast host for not challenging or fact-checking the statement during the interview, reigniting broader discussions about the importance of preserving documented craft histories.
Beyond the dispute over origin, the episode has renewed calls to protect the legacy of zardozi’s true custodians: the generations of artisans, largely uncredited and often working in modest conditions, who have kept this centuries-old craft alive. Any conversation about the tradition’s history should centre their skill and lineage, not the fashion labels that popularize it.
