Summary

Prada recently unveiled a US$1,200 sandal nearly identical in silhouette and detail to the Kolhapuri chappal—a centuries-old handcrafted Indian shoe—at its Milan Fashion Week show. Initially, the brand omitted any acknowledgment of the shoe’s Indian origins, sparking backlash in India and drawing accusations of cultural appropriation. Only after public outcry did Prada formally recognize its design's inspiration in a letter to Maharashtra commerce authorities.

Kolhapuri chappals, intimate to Maharashtra’s artisanal legacy and recognized by a geographical indication (GI) tag, are traditionally made from buffalo hide using natural dyes and painstakingly hand-stitched—typically sold at a tiny fraction of Prada’s price.

Analysis

This incident sits at the intersection of global fashion, economic inequality, and cultural identity. Prada’s initial lack of attribution highlights broader patterns of how Western luxury brands often draw from non-Western traditions without due credit or remuneration—a classic case in the ongoing debate about cultural appropriation versus appreciation. The economic disparity is stark: artisans who preserve and evolve these traditions rarely see proportional benefits as their work is recast and sold for exorbitant sums elsewhere.

There’s also an ethical dimension at play. The Kolhapuri chappal is more than footwear; it is a symbol of regional pride, heritage, and labor. When a multinational brand omits origin, it risks erasing the context and lineage that imbue the item with meaning. While Prada’s eventual acknowledgment is important, it came reactively, spurred by criticism—not as a proactive gesture of respect.

Discussion

At its heart, this controversy is about power, recognition, and value. When a Western luxury house appropriates an object deeply embedded in another culture, the questions go beyond commerce. Is this creativity or co-optation? Who gets to profit? And how should brands engage with global aesthetics in a way that is respectful—and perhaps, reparative?

The Prada-Kolhapuri case is hardly isolated. From designers copying indigenous patterns to fast fashion exploiting folk motifs, fashion as an industry perpetually flirts with these boundaries. Yet, as consumer awareness grows, so do calls for brands to credit, collaborate with, and support the communities whose creativity they borrow from.

Reflecting on this, perhaps the most constructive responses involve more than corporate acknowledgment: true respect demands direct collaboration, fair profit-sharing, and educational initiatives that highlight the heritage under the luxury veneer. Otherwise, what is called ‘inspiration’ remains, for many, a modern form of extraction.

Ultimately, this episode prompts deeper inquiry into what authenticity and respect mean in a globalized creative marketplace—and how value should be distributed across the production chain. Will luxury brands adapt to these expectations, or are apologies all we will ever see?