Prada’s Sandal Scandal

As pictures and videos from Italian luxury brand Prada’s Spring/Summer 2026 show in Milan flooded the Internet, one particular clip of a model sporting slippers caught global attention. The footwear was a carbon copy of India’s very own Kolhapuri sandals. Now, imagine a product that was worn by our grandfathers, fathers and even us at some point in time or the other, costing between Rs 500-1000 being sold by a foreign brand for a whopping Rs 1.2 lakh and that too, without any credit to where it came from or who made it! The development has sparked debates about cultural misappropriation, intellectual plagiarism and ignoring the economic struggles of Indian artisan communities. Karnataka minister Priyank Kharge also took to social media to point out the state’s role in producing this distinctive style of footwear, with regions like Belagavi, Dharwad, and Bagalkot being major production hubs. As the stir continues to engulf Prada even after they admitted the source of ‘inspiration’ for their leather flat sandals, the question remains whether luxury labels elevate or exploit traditional crafts (India in this context)? Kolhapuri chappals are handcrafted leather sandals traditionally made by artisans in Maharashtra’s Kolhapur district and parts of Karnataka. Believed to have originated centuries ago, these sandals are best known for their distinctive braided leather straps, intricate cutwork, durable construction and timeless craftsmanship.

Once adorned by royalty and later popularised across India for their rustic charm, Kolhapuris are not merely footwear. These sandals are a marker of regional identity and craftsmanship involving a manufacturing process that is entirely manual, involving vegetable-tanned leather and indigenous techniques passed down from generation to generation. In 2019, after sustained advocacy by artisan groups and craft researchers, Kolhapuri chappals were granted a Geographical Indication (GI) tag under India’s Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. A GI tag helps protect products originating from a specific region, known for their unique features attributable to their geography, materials, and traditional know-how. However, Kolhapuri artisans have continued to struggle with shrinking markets and competition from factory-made imitations. Artisans feel that while luxury fashion profits from their craft’s cultural cachet, their own communities remain invisible, underpaid and excluded from global exposure. At the heart of the controversy lies the concept of cultural appropriation — with the term referring to when elements of culture, particularly those of historically oppressed or colonised societies, are adopted by dominant groups without consent, attribution, or compensation.

In the world of fashion, this often translates to luxury brands borrowing indigenous motifs, crafts, and garments for profit. The design of Prada’s sandals was unmistakably Kolhapuri in construction and aesthetic, but what made matters worse was the fact that the brand did not mention India, Kolhapur, or the craft’s artisan legacy. Another point of contention was the price disparity. Prada is reportedly planning to sell the product for over Rs 1 lakh — Indian artisans sell a pair for under Rs 1,000. It’s one thing for fashion brands to draw inspiration from different cultures but to appropriate or plagiarise designs can have legal and ethical consequences worldwide. However, Prada is not the first brand to exploit indigenous artisans for their benefit. Ralph Lauren is known to have apologised after Beatriz Gutierrez Muller, the wife of Mexico’s president, accused the luxury clothing brand of plagiarising indigenous designs from Contla and Saltillo. In 2015, Isabel Marant, a French designer, faced backlash in Mexico for selling a blouse identical to the traditional embroidery of the Mixe community in Oaxaca. Christian Dior, in 2019, used designs resembling traditional Mexican horsewomen’s attire for its Cruise collection. In the same year, Gucci faced backlash over its products, and two of the most talked-about pieces came from its Autumn/Winter 2018 runway. In February 2019, the brand released a wool balaclava jumper — a black turtleneck sweater that features a mouth cut-out with red panels that look like exaggerated lips. It sparked backlash for its resemblance to blackface caricatures almost immediately. Shortly after, Gucci posted an apology on Twitter and removed the jumper from its site. In the statement, the Italian fashion house mentioned that “we consider diversity to be a fundamental value to be fully upheld, respected, and at the forefront of every decision we make.” The brand also announced that the company would be hiring a global director for diversity and inclusion, as well as five new designers around the world for its Rome office.

Just three months after the saga, the brand is under fire once again after luxury e-retailer Nordstrom listed the Indy Full Turban that was first spotted on Gucci’s AW19 runway on its site. The Sikh Coalition, “a community-based organisation and think tank that defends Sikh civil rights”, in particular, tweeted: “The turban is not just an accessory to monetise. It’s a religious article of faith that millions of Sikhs view as sacred. Many find this cultural appropriation inappropriate since those wearing the turban just for fashion will not appreciate its deep religious significance.” The item was subsequently pulled from its site, and they also apologised to the Sikh community. In early June last year, Louis Vuitton was accused of imitating a traditional Romanian blouse without acknowledging its origin. In India, the brand has previously featured Banarasi motifs and Indian embroidery styles in collections without direct collaboration with artisan communities. These controversies raise persistent questions about cultural equity, economic justice, and who profits from indigenous heritage in the global luxury market. Thus, after the Prada-Kolhapuri controversy, there have been fresh calls for the Indian government to push for stronger international protections for GI-tagged products and for luxury brands to adopt fair trade collaborations with artisan groups. The outrage again brought to light the need for a growing global conversation about decolonising fashion, ethical consumption, and the rights of local artisans.

As the world increasingly prizes iconic, handmade and heritage products, ensuring that the benefits of such trends reach their original creators is no longer just a cultural concern but a matter of economic justice and ethics. The latest controversy is a window into the ongoing power imbalances in the fashion industry. For India, it ushers in an era to safeguard not just the products of its own artisans but the dignity and acknowledgement of those who create them.

Views expressed are personal