Kolhapuri chappals, Prada style: Homage or cultural appropriation?

Cultural appropriation in fashion is nothing new, but how should one see it - as homage or blatant robbery?

Italian luxury fashion house Prada has acknowledged that its recent Spring Summer 2026 menswear collection, showcased at the Milan Fashion Week, featured sandals inspired by traditional Indian footwear — the Kolhapuri chappals. But a controversy over “cultural appropriation” had already been stirred by then, with Indian fashion czars crying foul across media and social media. Thankfully, the Pharrell Williams x Louis Vuitton show, “Paris to India”, at Milan that followed Prada, had music by A R Rahman and a carpet with a snake-and-ladder motif designed by Bijoy Jain — which led to much appreciation and applause.

 

Kolhapuris, GI (Geographical Indication) tagged since 2019, were worn as early as the 13th century — also known as Kapashi, Paytaan, Kachkadi, Bakkalnali, and Pukri, so named by village of origin.

 

Appropriation, or inspiration, or even imitation in fashion is not new. Japanese brand Puebco, for example, has been retailing common jute shopping bags of “Ramesh Special Namkeen” from Anita Confectionery Works, Bagar Chowk, Jodhpur (Raj) 842002, with a yellow sleeve that has “Chetak Sweet” emblazoned big and bold on it, for Yen 2,200 as Indian souvenir bags for years! One can be quite sure that Anita Confectionary gets no revenue or royalty from the sale of these bags.

 

Fashion rental company, Bipty, recently posted a video describing a dupatta as a “very European” or “Scandinavian” scarf. This sparked a wave of reactions on social media, with many South Asian individuals calling out the blatant cultural (mis)appropriation. The Indian dupatta is a versatile garment with deep roots in South Asian culture, worn by women in various ways for religious ceremonies, celebrations, and everyday wear. It’s not merely a scarf; it’s a symbol of heritage and identity. The use of the term “Scandinavian scarf” to describe a dupatta minimises its cultural importance and presents it as a new, trendy item originating from the West. Reformation, the brand the dupatta belonged to, however, countered saying the design in question was inspired by a 1990s John Galliano gown and scarf set worn by model Devon Lee Carlson, who collaborated with the brand on the collection back then. Similarly, brand Oh Polly, has been on the receiving end for promoting the regal sharara as its own invention, despite it being an Indian ladies’ garment for centuries. This is a common pattern in the fashion industry. Elements of other cultures are adopted and rebranded without acknowledging their origins. And, therein, lie the triggers for controversy.

 

There have been other aberrations too in the past. Delhi-based brand The People’s Tree had accused fashion giant Christian Dior of a knock-off of a boho-chic block printed dress of theirs, but Dior barely took notice. A more serious controversy involved the indignation over Zara and the lungi in 2018. The fashion retailer faced criticism for selling a “flowing skirt with draped detail in the front” that strongly resembled the traditional Indian lungi. The skirt was priced at £69.99 (approximately ₹6,200 back then), while a lungi in India typically costs around ₹200-300, and this led to the usual accusations of cultural appropriation and online mockery. 

 

There is also the interesting case of Japanese designer Ayano Yanagi, who has prominently incorporated kantha embroidery into her clothing brand, TETTE. Her “Meguru” collection especially uses Indian kantha quilts quite liberally and sells at stratospheric prices in Tokyo, that desi artisans cannot even dream of. Another Japanese brand, Calico, too has been known to have utilised kantha embroidery for their easy, breathable dresses – but Calico has deflected criticism by conveying that Japanese textile traditions like Boro share similarities in their focus on layering and repurposing textiles. So, there is nothing really amiss.

 

Similarly, there is the famous case of Urban Outfitters versus the Navajo Nation, where the company used the Native American tribe’s indigenous patterns on merchandise like underwear and flasks. But despite strong heritage claims, the Navajo Nation lost.

 

This conflict of cultural appropriation is difficult to tackle when it comes to fashion. It reminds one of the controversies over John Galliano’s Diorentalism haute couture collection and Yves Saint Laurent’s Opium collection. These designers borrowed heavily from Chinese culture, especially the fabrics and silhouettes. Was that a homage or a blatant robbery? To some of us, it was a powerful moment of understanding how culture and fashion go hand in hand: A source of inspiration that is taken and applied to a garment. That is all. One can’t, and shouldn’t, really see it past that. Or perhaps, in all fairness, one lacks the sensitivity to comprehend the full extent of the hoopla on culture and its appropriation. What?

The author is chairman of Rediffusion