When Luxury Fails to Listen – India’s Cultural Craft vs Global Fashion Giants

When Italian luxury house Prada sent its models strutting down the Milan runway in June, few anticipated the storm that would follow. On their feet were toe-ring sandals, unmistakably reminiscent of the Kolhapuri chappal – a handcrafted leather footwear design rooted in centuries-old tradition from Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Yet, nowhere in Prada’s presentation was India – or Kolhapur – mentioned.

A Fashion Faux Pas in Milan

The backlash was swift and unrelenting. Critics accused Prada of cultural appropriation, of benefiting from an aesthetic without acknowledging its roots. Days later, perhaps in damage control or genuine reflection, Prada extended an olive branch. A company delegation visited Kolhapur, meeting artisans and local shopkeepers, and later issued a statement acknowledging the sandals’ origin and expressing openness to a meaningful exchange with Indian craftsmen.

For the first time in a long time, a global luxury brand publicly recognized it had failed to give credit where it was due.

The Pattern of Appropriation

Prada’s stumble is not an isolated case. In recent months and years, major fashion houses like H&M, Reformation, and Dior have been accused of borrowing heavily from Indian and South Asian aesthetics – be it silhouettes, embroidery techniques, or styling cues – without naming their inspirations.

In one instance, Dior showcased a gold and ivory coat featuring mukaish embroidery – an intricate metallic threadwork tradition from North India – but failed to mention its Indian lineage. Similarly, Reformation’s spring collection came under fire for outfits that bore a striking resemblance to lehengas and cholis. While Reformation claimed collaboration with a model who owned a similar garment, and H&M denied any such influence, the lack of proactive credit rang louder than any disclaimer.

Fashion, by its very nature, thrives on reinvention. But critics argue that when a global brand repackages a cultural legacy and sells it for thousands of dollars without so much as a footnote, it becomes exploitation rather than inspiration.

A Market Misread

The larger irony is that while these brands routinely pluck from India’s artistic heritage, they simultaneously overlook India as a serious market for luxury. “Names like Prada still mean nothing to a majority of Indians,” says Arvind Singhal, chairman of consultancy firm Technopak. “There is some demand among the super-rich, but hardly any first-time customers.”

Despite the growth projections – Boston Consulting Group estimates India’s luxury retail sector will nearly double to $14 billion by 2032 – brands continue to treat India as a production hub, not a consumer powerhouse. Delhi-based designer Anand Bhushan puts it bluntly: “India has always been the workshop, rarely the muse.”

Even when the spotlight is on India, it often comes filtered through a western lens. Chanel’s 2011 Métiers d’Art “Paris-Bombay” collection, for instance, was celebrated for its exotic flair but derided for leaning into tired tropes – sari drapes, Nehru collars, and ornate bindis that felt more theatrical than authentic.

Between Oversight and Opportunity

Some, like Nonita Kalra, editor-in-chief of Tata CliQ Luxury, believe brands like Prada may have acted out of ignorance rather than ill will. “Their love and respect for Indian heritage is genuine,” she says, “but the lack of diversity in decision-making rooms creates blind spots.”

For Kalra, the way forward is inclusion—hiring from different geographies, listening to voices within the cultures they tap into, and investing in deeper cross-cultural understanding. And while Prada’s outreach to Kolhapuri artisans is commendable, it should be the beginning of a new chapter, not just a PR footnote.

The issue of cultural appropriation in fashion is thorny. Aesthetic influence has always crossed borders, and designers often find inspiration in places far from home. But, as Shefalee Vasudev, editor-in-chief of Voice of Fashion, puts it, “Giving due credit is part of design ethics. Not doing so is cultural neglect.”

An Unequal Exchange

Beyond fashion runways and glossy campaigns lies a more sobering reality: the artisans themselves. Kolhapuri chappals, juthis, zardozi embroidery, and mukaish work are made by hands that often go uncredited and underpaid. Their crafts may take weeks to perfect, but their livelihoods are precarious, unprotected by global intellectual property laws.

“We don’t take enough pride in our own artisans, allowing others to walk all over it,” Vasudev laments.

Laila Tyabji, chairperson of Dastkar, echoes the sentiment. “We haggle over a pair of beautifully embroidered juthis, but don’t think twice about buying mass-produced Nike shoes at ten times the price.” This systemic undervaluing opens the door for foreign designers to appropriate with impunity.

Turning the Tides

The outrage over Prada could become a watershed moment – both for international brands and India itself. For the fashion industry, it’s a wake-up call to act with greater responsibility, nuance, and cultural sensitivity. For India, it’s a reminder to elevate, protect, and proudly own its rich artistic lineage.

Change, as Tyabji says, begins at home: “Real transformation will only come when we ourselves respect and support our artisans – and have the tools to defend their work on the world stage.”

In the fabric of fashion, threads of tradition must not be treated as disposable. They deserve not only admiration but attribution. The world is watching, and so is India.