Prada vs Kolhapuri chappals: Controversies around cultural appropriation highlight need for increased GI tagging in India

Over the last few weeks, Indian heritage and culture came into sharp focus in global fashion circles. First, the good bit. French luxury label Louis Vuitton had models walk down a striking Snakes & Ladders-themed runway designed by renowned Indian architect Bijoy Jain. It was on point for the brand that had titled its Spring-Summer 2026 Men’s Collection ‘ A Voyage to India’.

But just a few days before that, in Milan on June 22, controversy struck when Italian luxury house Prada sent male models strutting in open-toe leather sandals ‘inspired’ by traditional Kolhapuri chappals. They did so without crediting Kolhapuri artisans for the inspiration. The furore that followed led to Prada admitting its mistake.

The company then held discussions with the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) and said it has plans to send a delegation to Kolhapur to explore a potential collaboration. But the reality is that the whole shebang is nothing new, and the development that has come about as a result of the Prada controversy is rare. From designs to dishes, from paintings to pottery, and from tea to rice, Indian origin goods have found themselves at the receiving end of imitation over many years.
Anthropologist Phyllida Jay, in her book Inspired by India, writes about India’s role in global design from the 1600s to the present and raises concerns about colonial exploitation and cultural appropriation.

While that is troubling enough, artisans and craftspeople are deprived of credit and dignified livelihood even as large companies, both Indian and international, monetise these individuals under luxury labels.

One of the ways used to protect items from such issues is the Geographical Indication (GI) tag, a global system of labelling used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation due to that origin.

India has been using the tool to push back on plenty of products, but the latest round of controversies shows a need to raise the pitch and enforce such regulations. It also shows the need to add more Indian craftsmanship to the list of GI-protected items. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), “From a total of 86 national and regional authorities, there were an estimated 58,600 protected GIs in existence in 2023.” More than half that number is in the EU.

India has 643 registered GIs. France has 681 just in food and beverages. For comparison, India is about six times the size of France by land area, and has 21 times more people. The Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd (LIDCOM) jointly holds the Geographical Indication (GI) rights for Kolhapuri chappals with Karnataka’s LIDKAR. Initial silence was broken by the brand only after backlash.

But things might have been even tougher if it were not for its GI tag.
Safeguarding its IP and heritage is something India is lagging behind in. Since 1990, India has cumulatively paid $100.8 billion while receiving only $11 billion in IP receipts — a net $90 billion deficit, according to an op-ed in ET.

Expert Speak
India’s GI Act (1999) protects registered heritage goods like Kolhapuris domestically — but not globally. Even within India, unless the GI name is used in commercial communication, legal recourse is limited. Borrowing a silhouette isn’t illegal. But calling something Kolhapuri without authorisation could be considered passing off. Internationally, however, we need bilateral trade agreements or global trademark registration for better protection — like in the case of Darjeeling Tea. —Priyanka Khimani, IP Lawyer.

A lot of inspiration is taken by Indian designers, chefs, musicians and others from cultures across the world. In fact, I believe cultures evolve by taking inspiration from each other. We should give credit to where it belongs. Unfair practices should be avoided. — Toolika Gupta, Director, Indian Institute Of Crafts & Design

It really comes down to the history of colonialism, power, and how we define cultural influence and borrowing. There’s a difference between crosscultural design inspiration and stealing, and the sense of this is amplified when India is a country with a colonial history that saw its own textile industry dismantled by systemic forces. Added to that, we still have a global regime of value, whereby an international luxury brand can assert the value of something based on the idea of Italian or French “prestige” even if the design inspiration or production is Indian. In the specific case of the Kolhapuri chappal, it has GI status and is ineluctably linked to particular communities and their craft traditions. Especially given that Prada’s beautiful ‘Made in India’ collection was created with Chennai-based artisans in 2012. Regardless of whether this product would be for commercial sale or not, it’s absolutely mystifying why Prada didn’t work directly with artisans, with clear communication from its press team that this would have been “appreciation”. Instead, it literally copied the chappals, with no acknowledgement, to add a cliched element of “bohemian flair” to a rather flat menswear collection. — Phyllida Jay, anthropologist, fashion scholar and author

My family — all 12 of us — has been making Kolhapuri chappals for the last 20 years. Our business, Abhishek Footwear, mainly sells through exhibitions and locally in the city. One chappal can take up to 16 hours or two days to produce. We manage to sell a few thousand pairs each year. Depending on the design, a pair can cost anywhere between `500 and `10,000. But every monsoon, our work comes to a standstill. Even putting food on the table becomes a struggle. When I was told that Prada’s version of the Kolhapuri could fetch `1 lakh, I couldn’t help but laugh — bitterly. This is why our karigar is dying. — Raviraj Kamble, Kolhapuri artisan