Prada finally admits their 1.2 Lakh men’s sandals were inspired by Kolhapuri chappals, read how luxury brands habitually steal traditional crafts and deny credit

Centuries-old Indian footwear design unexpectedly found its way onto a Milan runway, and it led to a global controversy. Recently, Italian luxury brand Prada “proudly” showcased a pair of flat, open-toe leather sandals in its Spring/Summer 2026 menswear line. While the applause did not stop for Prada for coming up with an innovative foot-friendly design, it strikingly looked similar to none other than Kolhapuri chappals, the traditional handcrafted sandals from India.

The Prada sandals, or the fake Kolhapuri chappals, came with a price tag of ₹1 lakh or $1,200, while in India, the original version lists for around ₹1,000. As soon as the Prada sandals featured on social media, netizens, especially from India, fumed. What enraged most was not the price mark-up but the fact that Prada initially gave no credit to Indian artisans for the design. The brand simply labelled them as “leather sandals”, thinking they could get away with it. Like the comedian Abhishek Upmanyu once said, “Inko (Indians) kya hi pata chalega.”

But the internet is ruthless. Above all, Indians are literally everywhere. The moment Prada’s “leather sandals” went viral, the brand came under fire for not mentioning India, Kolhapur or the craft’s legacy. This perceived erasure of origin led to an outcry that the brand might not have been expecting. Netizens not only accused Prada of stealing the design but also of cultural appropriation.

Kolhapuri chappals are named after the town of Kolhapur in Maharashtra, India. These chappals are famed for their braided leather straps, intricate cutwork and durable handcraftsmanship. The designs of these chappals have been passed down through generations. They even carry a Geographical Indication (GI) tag in India since 2019, recognising their regional heritage and unique crafting process.

For Indians, who have known the famous Kolhapuri chappals, it felt like the ₹500 chappals that every family member loved got rebranded as a contemporary European sandal costing 200 times more. Beyond price, it highlighted a power imbalance. An age-old Indian craft got monetised by a global brand, while its original makers remained invisible. This struck a nerve in India, where artisan communities often struggle economically even as their crafts inspire high-fashion trends.

Backlash forces Prada to acknowledge Indian inspiration

Prada faced both public and political backlash in India, and that too, swift and loud. Craftsmen from Kolhapur voiced dismay that their “history and heritage of 150 years” had gone unacknowledged. Lawmakers joined in, condemning Prada for its shameless design-picking tactics. For instance, a Member of Parliament from Maharashtra even led a group of Kolhapuri artisans to meet the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis, urging the government to protect the sandal’s GI rights and cultural significance.

Reportedly, Indian officials and artisan groups formally wrote to Prada, demanding the company give credit where it was due. Social media amplified the issue, with videos and posts questioning whether the dusty lanes of Kolhapur would get recognition on the international platform or not.

Facing anger of the people from India, Prada finally broke its silence. Prada’s Head of Corporate Social Responsibility, Lorenzo Bertelli, sent a letter to the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce acknowledging the sandals’ Indian provenance. The company said, “We acknowledge that the sandals… are inspired by traditional Indian handcrafted footwear, with a centuries-old heritage.”

Bertelli explicitly credited the Kolhapuri chappal inspiration. He noted the design was still in an early stage and not guaranteed to be commercialised. Prada also expressed willingness to open a dialogue with local Indian artisans for a “meaningful exchange” and promised follow-up meetings. A company spokesperson added that Prada has “always celebrated craftsmanship, heritage and design traditions”. However, it has to be noted that all these responses came after the outrage. Had there not been an outrage, Prada might have got away with it, minting money using a stolen design from Indian artisans.

The response from Prada marked a rare admission by a luxury brand after such accusations. For many critics, Prada’s about-face was welcome but belated. The sandals were showcased on 23rd June, and it took nearly a week of uproar for the company to publicly recognise the Indian legacy behind the design.

The incident brought the fine line between inspiration and appropriation in fashion, and the need for more respectful engagement with the artisan community, into focus.

Not the first – luxury brands and borrowed traditions

The Prada-Kolhapuri episode is not an isolated one. For decades, luxury and fashion brands have been accused of stealing traditional crafts or indigenous designs and selling them as their own. Often, the original creators, who are usually rural artisans or small communities, receive no credit or compensation while the brand makes heavy profits.

The Sabyasachi saga – when an Indian designer drew flak

Cultural appropriation in fashion is not new or confined to Western luxury houses. Indian designers, including Sabyasachi Mukherjee, have faced criticism for exploiting traditional crafts without properly involving or crediting the artisans behind them. In 2021, Sabyasachi collaborated with H&M and came up with a collection titled Wanderlust. The affordable collection featured prints inspired by Indian textile traditions like Sanganeri block printing, which is a GI-tagged craft practised by the Chhipa community of Rajasthan.

The issue there was not only the motifs that were used, but also that they were mass-produced using digital printing. Sadly, reportedly not even a single artisan was engaged. The collection sold out rapidly, but the community behind the art did not get any direct benefit. It led to a backlash from artisan cooperatives and craft activists. They penned an open letter condemning the missed opportunity. They accused Sabyasachi of allowing India’s rich craft legacy to be “bastardised by H&M’s conveyor belt”, all while marketing the collection with visuals suggesting handmade authenticity.

The episode exposed a deep power imbalance within Indian fashion itself. It reinforced the call for inclusive, transparent collaboration where artisans are treated not as silent muses, but as creative partners sharing in both credit and commercial success. From time to time, several Indian brands have come under fire for not giving due credit to the artisans.

Luxury brands have frequently dipped into India’s design heritage. For example, Louis Vuitton incorporated classic Indian textiles like Banarasi brocade motifs and embroidery styles into its collections without working with the artisans behind them. Such moves often fly under the radar as these brands do not explicitly name the source.

Similarly, in 2021, Italian luxury house Gucci found itself mocked on Indian social media for selling what was essentially an Indian kurta as an “organic linen kaftan” at a whopping price of $3,500 or ₹2.5 lakh. Indians were quick to point out they could buy the same garment in local markets for a few hundred rupees. Beyond the price ridicule, many saw it as cultural appropriation – repackaging a quotidian Indian attire as a deluxe Western fashion item.

When artisans felt cheated internationally

Apart from Indian brands picking designs without involving artisans, there are similar cases that have happened across the world. In 2015, French designer Isabel Marant faced backlash in Mexico for a blouse she sold that was virtually identical to a traditional Mixe indigenous embroidery from Oaxaca. The case became the foundation for Mexico to protect indigenous textile designs from exploitation.

Between 2017 and 2019, Christian Dior was called out multiple times over accusations of plagiarising the distinctive Bihor County folk vest of Romania, copying its colourful motifs in a jacket and selling it for thousands of euros without giving any credit to the source of “inspiration”. In 2019, Dior’s Cruise collection drew ire for using designs resembling the traditional attire of Mexican Escaramuza horsewomen. Locals noted the uncanny similarity and the lack of collaboration or acknowledgment of Mexican heritage.

In 2019, New York-based fashion label Carolina Herrera’s Resort 2020 collection led to an official complaint by the Mexican government. Dresses in the collection were full of patterns lifted directly from Mexican indigenous communities, including floral embroideries of Tenango de Doria (Hidalgo) and motifs from Saltillo shawls.

The Culture Minister of Mexico wrote to Herrera condemning the usage of designs “whose origins are well documented” and calling it a matter of ethics and visibility for indigenous artisans. The government even proposed a law to recognise indigenous communities as the lawful owners of their cultural designs to prevent such plagiarism.

These examples show a habitual pattern. Traditional designs are copied in the name of “inspiration” and sold at a premium price, far out of reach for the communities that created the original. Each incident has sparked debate, yet the practice persists. These “big” brands are unable to meet the demand of coming up with new designs constantly and choose the easy way – to simply pick existing designs rather than sit with the artisans and come up with a plan that is a win-win for everyone.

A legal vacuum for traditional designs

Traditional art and craft face limited legal protection globally. In India, GI-tags safeguard names like “Kolhapuri chappal” domestically. However, such rights do not apply abroad. Brands often copy designs without naming the original design or the artists to evade legal action. For example, Prada never used “Kolhapuri”, but the design is embedded in such a way in Indian minds that it did not work for the brand.

At the international level, intellectual property laws offer little defence unless a design is patented or copyrighted. Efforts by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to protect traditional cultural expressions remain slow. While countries like Mexico are pushing for reform, most artisan communities rely on public pressure, not litigation. The core question is: how is an artist, an organisation or a government going to sue for a design created by a culture, not an individual?

Decolonising fashion – Collaboration over exploitation

The uproar over Prada’s stunt has reignited a broader conversation about decolonising fashion and building a more ethical, inclusive industry. Consumers are increasingly valuing sustainability, heritage and craftsmanship, and traditional art forms can benefit from it. However, this can happen only if the original creators are recognised and rewarded.

The issue is one of social justice as well. Luxury brands extract inspiration without credit or compensation. They are simply replicating colonial patterns where wealth flows one way, away from the source.

This isn’t new. In the 19th century, the now-famous Paisley pattern originated from the buta motif on Kashmiri shawls. These were so coveted that Scottish mills in Paisley began mass-producing cheap replicas, eventually pushing Kashmiri artisans out of the market. That history echoes today, as Prada’s runway borrows from Kolhapur’s cobblers without initially acknowledging them.

However, growing awareness is creating change. After public pressure, Prada credited the Kolhapuri inspiration and signalled willingness to engage with Indian artisans. If such gestures translate into meaningful collaboration, they could reshape the fashion landscape. Some brands are already prioritising artisan partnerships and ethical sourcing.

Ultimately, this debate forces fashion to confront a key question: is it inspiration, or exploitation? The goal must be a future where traditional crafts walk global runways with dignity, credit and shared success.

News