Our website use cookies to improve and personalize your experience and to display advertisements(if any). Our website may also include cookies from third parties like Google Adsense, Google Analytics, Youtube. By using the website, you consent to the use of cookies. We have updated our Privacy Policy. Please click on the button to check our Privacy Policy.

Prada faces backlash, acknowledges Indian roots in shoe design

Italian fashion house Prada has publicly acknowledged the cultural origins of a recent footwear design after facing criticism for overlooking its resemblance to traditional Indian footwear. The acknowledgment comes amid growing conversations within the fashion industry about the importance of crediting non-Western influences and respecting cultural heritage in design.

The controversy began when Prada unveiled a new pair of slip-on shoes that closely resembled the traditional Indian jutti—a handcrafted leather shoe known for its curved toe and intricate embroidery, widely worn across various regions of India. While the luxury label did not initially reference any cultural inspiration, fashion observers and social media users quickly pointed out the striking similarities, sparking accusations of cultural appropriation.

Critics argued that by marketing the shoes without crediting their origins, Prada had overlooked the cultural and artisanal history behind a design that holds deep significance in South Asian communities. Many emphasized that such practices contribute to a pattern of global fashion houses drawing from non-Western traditions without giving due recognition or compensation to the cultures from which they borrow.

In response to the backlash, Prada released a statement acknowledging that the design drew inspiration from traditional Indian footwear and expressed appreciation for the craftsmanship that influenced the collection. The brand also reiterated its commitment to respecting global cultures and working toward greater inclusivity and awareness in its creative process.

This initiative by Prada is a component of a larger shift in the high-end fashion sector, where conversations about cultural inclusivity, representation, and appropriation have become a primary focus. Today’s consumers are more outspoken about ensuring that brands are responsible—not merely for their design decisions, but also for how these decisions interact with and mirror a variety of cultural stories.

Classic Indian juttis transcend mere fashion; they stand as a representation of cultural identity and masterful craftsmanship, crafted by talented artisans utilizing time-honored techniques passed down over ages. Traditionally, both men and women have donned juttis for formal ceremonies, spiritual gatherings, or daily use. Their creation generally features leather or textile foundations, intricate hand embroidery, bead detailing, and lively hues—all distinctive elements of Indian artistry.

In recent years, there has been a growing global appreciation for traditional Indian designs, driven in part by diasporic influence, cultural exchange, and an expanding interest in sustainable fashion practices. However, this growing visibility has also led to concerns about the line between appreciation and appropriation. When global brands adopt such styles without acknowledgment, it not only erases the origin story of these designs but also marginalizes the communities and craftspeople who sustain them.

Prada’s approach to the criticism might indicate a move towards more thoughtful interactions with worldwide design customs. The brand recognizes the misstep and has suggested the possibility of working with artisans from the areas that influence their collections. These collaborations—if carried out genuinely—could open opportunities for acknowledgment, financial backing, and the safeguarding of traditional craftsmanship.

Industry analysts highlight that although creativity is inherent in the progression of fashion, the situation in which a design is modified is significant. Acknowledging sources, narrating the complete history, and incorporating the perspectives of individuals whose traditions influence a design are essential to establishing a moral and considerate creation process. Companies that neglect these aspects might distance consumers and sustain persistent imbalances in the allocation of fashion’s cultural influence.

In the case of Prada, the company’s acknowledgment may help ease some of the criticism, but it also sets a precedent for how global fashion houses should approach cross-cultural design going forward. Consumers are now more informed and engaged, and there is increasing demand for transparency not only in sourcing materials but also in sourcing ideas.

Several other fashion brands have faced similar scrutiny in recent years, prompting some to overhaul their creative and marketing strategies. Some have started collaborating directly with craftspeople, while others have incorporated advisory panels to ensure cultural sensitivity. These steps, though varied, point toward a more inclusive fashion future—one that values origin as much as innovation.

As fashion continues to globalize, the dialogue around ownership, heritage, and recognition becomes more complex—and more essential. The conversation extends beyond aesthetics to include economic justice, intellectual property, and the right of communities to see themselves represented accurately and respectfully on international platforms.

In recognizing the Indian roots of its footwear design, Prada has taken a step—albeit a reactive one—toward aligning with these evolving values. Whether this moment leads to lasting change in how the brand engages with cultural influences remains to be seen, but it marks another chapter in fashion’s ongoing journey toward greater accountability.

In the end, the future of design depends on teamwork, openness, and mutual respect. As the sector progresses, companies that adopt these values are more prone to create genuine relationships with worldwide audiences and establish legacies founded on more than just aesthetics, but also on cultural authenticity.

By Peter G. Killigang

You May Also Like