Prada’s Response to the Kolhapuri Sandal Row Leaves Key Issues Unsettled

Months after facing criticism for lifting the design of India’s traditional Kolhapuri Chappal (sandal), Prada has formally announced a limited edition collection of sandals inspired by it, to be made in India by Indian artisans, but with ‘Prada’s contemporary design and premium materials’. The Italian luxury house has also signed an MoU (memorandum of understanding) with two government backed corporations in India to ‘upskill the artisans, following the model of the Prada group Academy.’

While Prada deserves credit for not leaving its earlier missteps unaddressed, details of Prada’s restitution raise questions regarding its approach, as well as India’s willingness to let an Italian brand shoulder the globalisation of its indigenous craft.

Traditionally handcrafted in India since the 13th century, Kolhapuri Chappals are everyday, comfortable sandals defined by their utility and durability. They have been perfected over centuries by generations of craftsmen, and sold in India at accessible prices (CHF 10–40). Their proven sufficiency at low costs stands in stark contrast to Prada's luxury version, which will retail at around $930 with 'premium materials' and ‘contemporary design’.

Prada is attempting to validate its course correction through local manufacturing and training programs. However, the oversight in this solution is glaring: the insistence on the usage of 'premium materials’ may appear as a necessity for a quality driven brand, but it also tacitly suggests that the centuries-old indigenous craftsmanship that inspired the collection is fundamentally inadequate without foreign intervention. This is a reflection of a long-standing, patronizing dynamic in which Western entities position themselves as necessary elevators of an established Asian craft.

The Kolhapuri Chappal is a proven craft. It might benefit from respect and equal partnership, not a corrective patch of approval from the very company that first plagiarized it. By controlling the production and assigning the massive price, Prada ensures the value reflects its brand name, not the enduring skill of the Indian artisans - who it wants to ‘upskill’, ostensibly while ‘preserving’ the very craft it was accused of copying.

This is not restitution in the truest sense. It is recalibration, carefully managed to retain control over narrative, pricing and prestige. Prada deserves credit for addressing its misstep, but the approach still centres the brand as the arbiter of worth. The craft remains secondary to the logo that now frames it.

What this episode also reveals is a deeper imbalance in how cultural value is negotiated. India’s role is largely only reactive to the controversy, accommodating a foreign brand-led corrective patch on a much larger issue. In the case of Prada, India appears as a secondary partner in the global telling of its own craft. Securing the artisan community with a global collaboration that has come its way is absolutely right, but did the Indian artisan bodies settle for a limited and symbolic correction for brief global visibility, rather than pushing for long-term legal protection? In this deal, Indian craftsmen are present as labour and provenance, but absent from authority and authorship. By allowing restitution to be framed through external supervision and validation, the country risks reinforcing the very hierarchy it should be questioning.

In the end, this whole Prada x Kolhapuri Chappal episode still manages to set a few precedents. It reminds luxury brands that cultural borrowing cannot remain cost-free. Supply chains are not invisible in a digital era, and that heritage demands acknowledgment beyond mood boards.