Prada’s "leather sandals"
Prada has found itself in a situation of cultural oversight once again.
Prada has found itself in a situation of cultural oversight once again.
For over a week, platforms representing the Indian community have called out a specific sandal from the luxury brand’s Spring/Summer 2026 Menswear Show. While inspiration and cross-pollination are common (and even expected) in fashion, it is critical that designers cite their sources of inspiration. Designers Miuccia Prada and Raf Simons (along with their team) did not conspicuously acknowledge the originator of their selected footwear: the artisans of Maharashtra, India, who have handcrafted the Kolhapuri chappal (or Kolhapuri) that has come from the town of Kolhapur over centuries.
Prada released a statement that they have “always celebrated craftsmanship, heritage and design traditions” and that they are “in contact with the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Agriculture on this topic.”
The commentary on this has been diverse–some in the Indian community are proud, others feel insulted, and others (quite similar to what I’ve experienced within the Black community) are exhausted with the outrage at Western brands when there’s not enough appreciation for such cultural signifiers inside their own community to begin with. All of this is to say Indian culture is not a monolith, so the reactions are wide-ranging.
The Fashion and Race Database has been working for many years to aid in preventing mistakes like this through a section on the website I conceptualized called Objects That Matter. There, we have amassed a library of objects (garments, accessories, adornments, etc.) that you have seen in fashion “with a capital F,” but have lacked context that connects them to the originators and its appropriate use. An example of an Objects That Matter post would (for example) introduce the footwear object as a Kolhapuri chappal when the fashion industry would scrub its cultural significance and reduce it to “ring toe sandals” or, in Prada’s case, “leather sandals.”
For designers and brands looking for a resource even more technical, there’s something called a geographical indication (GI), “a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin.” Think of it like a geo pin for your design inspirations. GIs are overseen by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
This week, the Maharashtra government in India has locked in 40 Geographical Indication (GI) tags to prevent something like this from happening again.
What are your thoughts about Prada’s latest design inspiration? Comment below!
Suggested reading:
“Kolhapuri Chappals Walk the Prada Runway, Yet Local Artisans Get No Benefit From it” by Atul Howale
“Prada admits Indian inspiration in previously uncredited sandal design” for The Macao News
“Fashion between Inspiration and Appropriation” by Barbara Pozzo
India: Fashion’s Muse (exhibition) curated by Helen Jean
Cultural Appropriation in Fashion and Entertainment by Yuniya Kawamura & Jung-Whan Marc de Jong
India in Fashion: The Impact of Indian Dress and Textiles on the Fashionable Imagination by Hamish Bowles
Decolonizing Design: A Cultural Justice Guidebook by Elizabeth (Dori) Tunstall
Ridiculous
If the same standards of alleged cultural appropriation were applied to ethnic communities for what has been adapted from european traditions the acknowledgements would never end.
And, elaborating that point, when do the acknowledgements begin and end? I wore that type of sandal in the 1970s, literally 50 years ago. Will it be required to make acknowledgements for centuries?