By News18 Reshmi Dasgupta
When was the last time Kolhapuri chappals were seen in fashionable or upper-middle-class circles? Once the staple of college-goers and “jholawala” activists along with handloom kurtas, these handmade leather chappals from Maharashtra had become so typecast in the last decades of the 20th century that the new, 21st-century India did not regard them as cool anymore. They would all prefer those hip German cork sandals with a long name, or at least their knock-offs….
But Prada’s cultural appropriation of the Kolhapuri chappal has breathed new life into this artisanal footwear that had been beaten back by the avalanche of mass-produced, cheaper, or even slicker chappals, mostly made in factories. Even if much of India remains devoted to synthetic footwear, when one of the world’s most coveted brands found Kolhapuris worthy of the ramp at Milan Fashion Week, could India’s well-heeled fashionistas afford to ignore them now?
The decline in popularity of Kolhapuris may be a consequence of the explosion of choice in the market for footwear after liberalisation, especially in terms of design and affordability. Being handmade by a relatively small community of traditional artisans, Kolhapuris cannot obviously compete with the economies of scale and R&D budgets of big retail brands. Nor can they change designs in line with the latest international fashion trends, which now reach India in real time.
So, today’s globalised Indians cannot escape responsibility for the Kolhapuris’ gradual decline as a footwear option, particularly among the segments that can pay more but demand trendiness. Many rich Indians—not to mention Arabs and other affluent communities—prefer chappals and sandals from international luxury brands rather than their own traditional shoemakers, even as they continue to wear “traditional” items of clothing such as djellabas and churidar-kurtas.
There is very little information available even now on Prada’s version of Kolhapuris, including where they were made—in India or Italy or even China, maybe? Are they handmade or machine-made? Were any major design or process changes introduced—besides stamping “Prada” on the T-strap—that led it to not even acknowledge these were “inspired” by India’s Kolhapuris? The slip-ons seen on the ramp looked no different from what Indians know as Kolhapuris.
But given that a segment of Indians is crazy about foreign “branded” goods, if Prada manages to strike a compromise with the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce and others who have protested against its “chappal chori”, some enterprising Indians will start stamping “Prada” on regular Kolhapuris and selling them at a premium. Sadly, the traditional communities who make the chappals would not benefit from this “rebranding” without better legal provisions.
Kolhapuris are not the only classic Indian footwear to “feature” in international collections. For Deepika Padukone’s nuptials with Ranveer Singh in 2018, Sabyasachi collaborated with Christian Louboutin, taking forward their “capsule collection” of 2017 to make what were evidently juttis. But with one important distinction: they had left-right distinctions, which traditional juttis do not. Other iconic footwear designers have also mimicked the juttis’ embroidered look.
Experts have long advocated stricter laws (and their implementation) in India to guard against cultural appropriation. Two incidents from 2021 are indicative. First, Sabyasachi’s collection for the Swedish high street brand H&M featuring digitally printed versions of Sanganeri block print motifs without acknowledging the Indian tradition. Second, Gucci’s “linen kaftan”, which was an Indian kurta. In that same vein, Prada appropriating Kolhapuris in 2025 was inevitable.
There are two aspects to cultural appropriation: one of crafts and motifs, and the other of traditions. In the latter context, it may be recalled that in 2018, the Italian fashion brand Gucci found its reputation unravelling when it featured white models wearing its version of Sikh turbans and later sold them for $790 each as “Indy Full Turban”. The egregiousness of converting an invaluable article of faith into a fashion accessory did not strike anyone in the Gucci management.
Indeed, all these instances of disrespect point to a lack of diversity and cultural domain knowledge in international fashion houses. This is surprising because the world has moved on from the days when the West could poach designs from colonised cultures without fear of any effective opposition. The common arena of social media has removed that imbalance. So, whether they tap India or Algeria for “inspiration”, the lack of acknowledgement now evokes strong protests.
So far, international laws, especially those meant to protect intellectual property, presuppose everything has a particular creator, and hence, the beneficiary of any use of that work/invention is clear. But most distinctive attributes of cultures, especially ancient ones like India, have evolved over millennia and are still evolving; thus, no single person or entity can be “compensated” for their use. That blurry provenance has aided appropriations. Such laws must be modified.
Indian crafts and motifs cannot be allowed to go the way of chintz—the Indian technique of printing on cotton called “chheent”, meaning speckled, which many Europeans do not even realise has Indian roots! It would be wrong, however, to bristle at every instance of “inspiration” from India by international brands. India’s Geographical Indication scheme is a good start, but how it can benefit craftspeople directly and prevent cultural appropriation needs to be worked on more.
There is very little chance that those Prada-stamped Kolhapuris were made in Italy; hopefully, though, they were not manufactured in China but crafted in India, although there is no word on whether they were made in Kolhapur, as their GI certification stipulates. That could be precisely why Prada was emboldened not to even acknowledge Kolhapur when it debuted the chappals in Milan. India’s spirited response is heartening and should deter repetitions of this sort.
With proper acknowledgement from Prada, Kolhapuris would have got even more of a boost, as it would have focussed the world’s attention on the fine work of our leather artisans. That could have a ripple effect on other leather crafts and give them more business and more respect. And that could inspire others to learn and continue those skills. But most of all, we Indians need to appreciate our own traditional crafts, rather than wait for validation or appropriation by foreigners.
The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.