Why Cartier Denied Diljit but Let Emma Wear History
When Cartier refused Diljit Dosanjh the iconic Patiala Necklace, it sparked questions of race, heritage, and who controls colonial artifacts. Discover why a Western influencer was granted access, while an Indian star was denied.
A Colonial Jewel, A Cultural Divide: Why Cartier Let Emma Wear History but Not Diljit
When Punjabi superstar Diljit Dosanjh made his highly anticipated debut at the 2025 Met Gala, he wasn’t just serving a sartorial spectacle. Draped in a striking Prabal Gurung creation and wielding a ceremonial sword, Dosanjh walked the blue carpet as a proud emblem of his heritage. But behind the admiration and applause loomed a telling absence: the Patiala Necklace, a legendary Cartier creation once owned by an Indian Maharaja, was missing from his ensemble.
And the reason why has sparked a cultural reckoning.
Cartier’s Refusal and the Necklace That Spoke Volumes
Designed in 1928 by Cartier for Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala, the original necklace contained over 2,900 diamonds and weighed nearly 1,000 carats. It wasn’t just jewelry; it was imperial India’s shimmering legacy.
So when Dosanjh’s stylist, Abhilasha Devnani, approached Cartier to borrow the historic piece, the expectation was that the request would honor its roots. But Cartier said no. Citing museum preservation as the reason, the French luxury house declined the loan. Devnani instead commissioned an inspired replica from Indian jeweler Golecha—a beautiful homage, but a symbolic compromise.
Just three years earlier, however, Emma Chamberlain, an American YouTuber and Cartier ambassador, had worn a portion of that very necklace to the 2022 Met Gala. That raises the question: what changed?
Why Was a White Influencer Allowed to Wear It?
Chamberlain’s appearance was hailed as glamorous and nostalgic, a nod to Cartier’s rich design legacy. At the time, the narrative crafted around the necklace focused on European stewardship—Cartier as a guardian of treasures from a forgotten era.
But if Chamberlain’s wearing of the necklace was about fashion revival, Dosanjh’s was about cultural reclamation. He wasn’t just accessorizing; he was reviving history—his history. That difference, subtle yet seismic, seems to be where the discomfort lies.
Cultural commentators argue that Dosanjh’s presence would’ve forced luxury fashion to confront uncomfortable truths: colonialism, looted heritage, and the selective memory of global brands. A Western face in colonial jewels is nostalgia. A South Asian man in the same jewels is a political statement.
The Necklace as a Symbol of Colonial Entanglement
The Patiala Necklace isn’t simply an opulent object. It’s a relic of colonial displacement. After vanishing from India’s royal treasury post-Independence, fragments were eventually found and reacquired by Cartier. The full necklace remains unrestored—its pieces scattered, like many Indian artifacts now living in Western vaults.
To wear it is to invoke history. For Cartier, granting access to Chamberlain made commercial sense. But letting Dosanjh wear it might have disrupted the narrative—one they’ve carefully preserved. One where power flows West, even when the roots lie East.
Cultural Access vs. Corporate Aesthetics
Dosanjh’s Met Gala ensemble wasn’t just about style; it was a call for cultural access. His tribute to the Maharaja wasn’t performative—it was deeply personal, even radical. It reminded the world that fashion can be political, and that historical artifacts deserve to be seen through the lens of those to whom they belong.
By denying him, Cartier preserved a status quo where luxury brands curate, but never concede. Where heritage is admired but rarely returned. And where reclamation becomes a risk to corporate image.
Who Gets to Wear History?
In a world where aesthetics often trump ethics, the questions raised by this controversy feel vital. Why is history more palatable when divorced from its origin? Why is a brown man in traditional attire a “statement” while a white woman in the same jewels is “elegance”?
The debate extends beyond red carpets and runways. It speaks to museums filled with looted artifacts, to indigenous regalia locked behind glass, and to a system where access to cultural legacy is filtered through colonial lenses.
A Walk That Sparked a Conversation
Diljit Dosanjh didn’t need the Patiala Necklace to make history—his walk without it might be the more powerful statement. By drawing attention to its absence, he forced a global audience to confront the discomfort of selective memory and aestheticized erasure.
And in doing so, he may have redefined what it means to wear legacy on one’s sleeve.
Conclusion: Whose Story Does the Jewelry Tell?
The saga of the Patiala Necklace at the Met Gala is more than a fashion faux pas. It’s a lens into the ongoing tension between cultural ownership and corporate control, between heritage and marketing. As conversations about restitution, representation, and historical justice grow louder, brands like Cartier must decide whether they are curators of beauty or gatekeepers of history.
Because the truth is, history doesn’t just belong in display cases—it belongs to the people whose stories it tells.
Disclaimer:
This article is an independent commentary and not affiliated with Cartier, Prabal Gurung, or the Met Gala organizers. All opinions expressed are based on public sources and journalistic interpretation.
source : Economic times