Prada found itself at the center of a cultural appropriation debate after debuting a braided leather sandal at its Milan Men’s Spring/Summer 2026 show that bore a striking resemblance to India’s traditional Kolhapuri chappals. What began as a brief fashion moment quickly evolved into a full‑blown scandal, drawing condemnations from artisans, political leaders, and consumer advocates across India. Within days, the luxury label moved to recognize the sandals’ Indian heritage, initiate discussions with local guilds, and pledge ethical engagement—outcomes that may reshape how global brands approach indigenous designs.

Traditional Craft Meets High Fashion: The Roots of the Dispute

Kolhapuri chappals trace their lineage to at least the 12th century, originating in Maharashtra’s Kolhapur region and later gaining a Geographical Indication (GI) tag in 2019. Hand‑woven by artisans using techniques passed down through generations, these open‑toe leather sandals retail in local markets for as little as ₹300 to ₹1,500 (approximately USD 4–20). By contrast, Prada’s new braided sandals carry a price tag north of USD 844, underscoring the vast gulf between artisanal livelihoods and luxury branding.

At Milan’s fashion showcase on June 23, models walked the runway in minimalist menswear paired with Prada’s braided‑leather sandals. Social media users instantly drew parallels to Kolhapuri chappals, sparking the hashtag #KolhapuriChappals. Artisans and fashion commentators lamented the absence of any credit to India’s craft community, accusing Prada of repackaging centuries‑old designs for premium profit—a classic case of cultural appropriation.

Industry observers note that the use of traditional motifs without acknowledgment not only deprives artisans of recognition but risks diluting the unique cultural identity that GI status seeks to protect. The lack of public attribution fueled anger among craftsmen who see their centuries‑old techniques trivialized on an international stage.

Public Outcry and Political Intervention

The initial uproar in Indian fashion circles rapidly escalated into a broader political issue. The Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) filed a formal complaint, while BJP Rajya Sabha MP Dhananjay Mahadik led a delegation of Kolhapur artisans to meet Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. They urged government action to preserve GI protections, seek fair compensation, and deter further cases of unauthorized design lifting.

Nationalist and artisan‑rights leaders weighed in, demanding legal remedies. NCP (SP) chief Sharad Pawar proposed exploring patent mechanisms for traditional crafts to insulate them from global appropriation. Sambhajiraje Chhatrapati of the Kolhapur royal lineage decried Prada’s act as “daylight robbery,” urging swift state intervention. Plans for a public interest litigation in the Bombay High Court were mooted, with the Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation (LIDCOM) and its Karnataka counterpart LIDKAR considering cross‑border legal options.

Amid growing pressure, the controversy prompted major Indian media outlets to run exposés on similar appropriation cases—citing past incidents involving other luxury houses—and reignited debates on the adequacy of India’s GI framework, which currently prohibits unauthorized use of a product’s name but offers limited protection against visual design imitation. Critics argue that without robust enforcement mechanisms, artisans remain vulnerable to exploitation, while international brands face little deterrent.

Brand Response and Path Forward

Facing reputational risk and potential legal challenges, Prada moved swiftly to defuse the scandal. On June 27, Lorenzo Bertelli, Prada’s Head of Corporate Social Responsibility, sent a letter to MACCIA acknowledging that the Milan sandals were “inspired by traditional Indian handcrafted footwear, with a centuries‑old heritage.” He emphasized that the collection remains in its design phase and that no commercial production has been confirmed.

Prada pledged to open “meaningful dialogue” with local artisan communities and explore possibilities for collaboration or fair compensation. A company spokesperson reinforced the commitment, stating that Prada has “always celebrated craftsmanship, heritage and design traditions” and will “foster cultural engagement” to ensure rightful recognition of specialized craftspeople.

In a parallel development, Prada reportedly removed online images of the sandals from its official channels, signaling a temporary retreat while discussions continue. Luxury‑sector analysts view the brand’s rapid acknowledgment as a strategic imperative to restore goodwill in a key emerging market—India’s luxury sector has been expanding rapidly, with affluent consumers increasingly influencing global fashion trends.

Artisans and industry groups have cautiously welcomed Prada’s response but insist on concrete outcomes. MACCIA President Lalit Gandhi has urged the brand to formalize agreements that channel revenue back to Kolhapur craftsmen and to involve them directly in future design collaborations. Mahadik has reiterated calls for state‑led patent protections and legal aid for artisans pursuing GI enforcement.

Emerging Lessons for the Fashion Industry

The Prada sandal scandal highlights the growing sensitivity around the use of indigenous cultural assets by global brands. With social media amplifying every design resemblance instantaneously, luxury labels can no longer assume that distant runway shows will go unnoticed. The incident underscores the importance of proactive research into design origins, transparent crediting protocols, and equitable partnerships with source communities.

In response to this and similar controversies, several European and American fashion houses have begun establishing in‑house cultural heritage committees to vet inspirations and seek consultative input from artisan representatives. Meanwhile, policymakers in New Delhi are exploring updates to the GI regime and broader cultural property laws to tighten protections for traditional crafts, potentially introducing design registration systems and cross‑border enforcement mechanisms.

For Kolhapuri artisans, the Prada episode, despite its initial affront, may yield long‑term gains. Public attention has spotlighted the intricate leather‑braiding techniques and centuries‑old motifs that define chappal craftsmanship. Artisan groups report a surge in domestic orders and inquiries from boutique designers interested in authentic Kolhapuri work—a potential boon for a sector that often struggles for recognition in India’s rapidly modernizing economy.

As fashion labels chart future collections, the Prada scandal serves as a cautionary tale: inspiration drawn without due diligence risks igniting cultural sensitivities and sparking legal challenges, whereas genuine collaboration offers a pathway to celebrate and sustain heritage crafts. For now, the outcome of Prada’s dialogue with Kolhapur’s artisans remains in motion, but the episode has irrevocably shifted expectations around ethical design practices in high fashion.

(Adapted from MarketScreener.com)