It was fashion week in Mumbai, India last week. There were pieces shown that were “astronomically” expensive, only affordable to the elite, as one fashion student complained in a Daily News India article ( Fashion students protest wardrobe malfunction probe). But the big issue was not with the price of the clothing, or the design aesthetic, it had to do with the construction of two particular garments that did not do what the integral function clothing is intended to do: covering up the body, especially two famous models’ privates. These two garments ignited a huge debate, similar to the 2004 Super Bowl Janet Jackson boob slip issue (see: CNN: Apologetic Jackson says 'costume reveal' went awry).

BBC News India, in an article, Probe into Mumbai fashion gaffes, provides a simple sketch of the country’s indecent fashion debacle:

In one incident, model Carol Gracias' halter top slipped, leaving her breasts completely exposed. In another, a model's skirt zip split, leaving her bare bottom visible. The organizers of the fashion week have rejected claims that the two incidents were planned to generate publicity for last week's show. Maharashtra's Deputy Chief Minister RR Patil said he would look into the matter after some legislators raised the issue in the state assembly.

India’s debate and war on indecency and the woman’s body is very similar to the Jackson debate on whether the star planned the boob slip stunt for publicity for her upcoming album release, or if it was genuinely an accident that her pierced breast was shown to millions on television. At the heart of the matter, I believe that by dwelling on the fact that a breast and a bare bottom was shown and repeatedly showing it repeatedly to the public, only counteracts the investigator’s and the government’s claim: Giving the so-called “malfunction planners” the publicity they allegedly wanted. It’s a great plan if one actually planted the broken zipper and the loose halter.

According to an ABC News article, India to probe fashion show 'wardrobe malfunctions', “This has not gone well with Mumbai's politicians who have been waging a morality campaign which shut down the city's famous dance bars, making thousands of female dancers jobless.” So, the war on the boobies and the badonk-a-donk have nothing to do with the issue of feminism and the female body as a tool for capitalism, as noted by the BBC article:

"In these fashion shows the majority of the body was exposed and very little was covered," Mr Navalkar told the BBC. "Such exploitation of a woman's body for commercial purposes is not acceptable to us."

Instead, like the rest of the world, it has to do with the government “waging a morality campaign,” imposing religious beliefs onto a free world that is diverse in their views of what they deem moral. Don’t get me wrong, it is indeed tacky and disrespectful for a designer to send a model onto the runway with her breasts and ass exposed, but at the same time, wouldn’t it be bad business for a designer to genuinely send out clothing that is not well constructed. It shows a lack of professionalism and tact.

Many of the students in the Daily News India article echo my view, one finding the government’s investigation into the malfunctions as “shooting arrows into the dark”:

This probe is ridiculous. It seems the govt has nothing else to do. They are assuming that the malfunctions were rigged for publicity. They don’t know that such things happen. Which renowned designer will deliberately sabotage his outfit? This will only tarnish his reputation. Again, which model will want to face public embarrassment? Especially, established models like, Carol Gracias and Ujjwala Raut, who don't need the publicity. — Bidhisha Ghosal/Student of fashion designing.

As with all things deemed as indecent exposure, from the Nicollette Sheridan/Terrell Owens clip for Monday Night Football (see: MSNBC: ABC apologizes for steamy MNF intro) to the Paris Hilton Carl’s Junior commercial (see: P.H. Commercial Clip), the more the government and media intervene, the more attention they gain, therefore fulfilling the conservative’s opposite effect. As one fashion student said in the Daily News India article, “Whatever the case, why probe deeper in to this matter? Let sleeping dogs lie. The probe will not do any good.”