“Chappal Chor” : A Case of Cultural Misappropriation !!!

When the world runs out of Ideas, it looks at India and then “Steals it”!!! The Prada-Kolhapuri incident is just another example of this.  Let me walk you through a number of incidents from “Chapal Chor” to “Rice Chor” to “Haldi Chor” to “Kurti Chor”

1. Prada–Kolhapuri Chappal Controversy (2025)

• Background: In June 2025, Italian luxury brand Prada unveiled a men’s sandal in its Spring/Summer 2026 collection at Milan Fashion Week that closely resembled the traditional Indian Kolhapuri chappal—a centuries-old handcrafted leather sandal from Maharashtra and Karnataka, protected by a Geographical Indication (GI) tag since 2019.

• Issue: Prada initially marketed the sandals as their own “leather sandals,” with no mention of India, Kolhapur, or the craft’s legacy, and priced them at over ₹1 lakh (about $1,200), while genuine Kolhapuris sell for around ₹1,000–₹12,000 in India. This omission led to widespread outrage on social media and among Indian artisans, who saw it as cultural appropriation and a violation of the GI tag.

• Response: After intense backlash, Prada officially acknowledged the Indian inspiration behind the design and expressed willingness to engage with artisan groups. The incident reignited debates about power imbalances in global fashion, the invisibility of original creators, and the need for stronger protection of traditional crafts.

2. Basmati Rice Patent (Ricetec, USA, 1997)

• Background: In 1997, US company Ricetec Inc. was granted a patent by the US Patent and Trademark Office for certain lines of Basmati rice and its method of cooking. Basmati rice is a premium variety grown in India and Pakistan, known for its unique aroma and long grains.

• Issue: The patent was seen as an attempt to monopolize the name and qualities of Basmati rice, which has been cultivated in the Indian subcontinent for centuries. The move threatened the livelihoods of Indian farmers and the authenticity of Basmati as a GI product.

• Response: The Indian government and farmer groups mounted a legal and diplomatic challenge, resulting in the US authorities revoking most of Ricetec’s claims and barring the use of the term “Basmati” for rice grown outside the Indian subcontinent.

3. Turmeric Patent (US Researchers, 1995)

• Background: In 1995, two US-based researchers were granted a patent for the use of turmeric powder in wound healing—a practice that has been part of Indian traditional medicine (Ayurveda) for centuries.

• Issue: The patent was widely criticized as an example of “biopiracy,” where traditional knowledge is patented by outsiders without acknowledgment or benefit to the communities that developed it.

• Response: India’s Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) provided evidence of prior traditional use, leading to the patent being revoked in 1997.

4. Neem Patent (USDA/W.R. Grace, USA, 2000)

• Background: The US Department of Agriculture and chemical company W.R. Grace were granted a European patent for a method of extracting neem oil for use as a fungicide. Neem has been used in Indian agriculture and medicine for centuries.

• Issue: The patent was seen as an appropriation of traditional Indian knowledge.

• Response: Indian environmentalists, farmers, and the government challenged the patent, and in 2000, the European Patent Office revoked it on the grounds of “prior art”—proof that the use was already known in India

These incidents highlight a recurring pattern: traditional Indian crafts, agricultural products, and medicinal knowledge being commercialized or patented by foreign companies without proper credit or compensation to Indian creators or communities.

5. Gucci’s Floral Kaftan/Kurta Controversy

• Background:
  In 2021, Gucci launched a “floral embroidery organic linen kaftan” priced at $3,500 (approx. ₹2.5 lakh). The garment bore a striking resemblance to the traditional Indian kurta, widely worn across South Asia. The design, embroidery, and silhouette were so familiar that many Indians noted they could find similar pieces in local markets for just a few hundred rupees.
• Public Reaction:
  The launch sparked widespread backlash on Indian social media, with a wave of criticism, memes, and satire. Many users accused Gucci of cultural appropriation and “fashion colonialism”—profiting from a deeply rooted cultural garment while ignoring its origins.
• Cultural Significance:
  The kurta is more than just clothing; it’s a cultural staple in India with rich historical and social significance. By labeling it a “kaftan” and failing to acknowledge its South Asian roots, Gucci was widely seen as erasing the garment’s cultural identity.

What is Cultural Misappropriation:

Cultural misappropriation refers to the inappropriate or harmful use of elements from one culture by members of another—often more dominant—culture, typically without understanding, respect, or permission.

It involves the adoption or commercialization of cultural expressions such as traditional dress, music, cuisine, knowledge systems, art, or religious symbols by outsiders. This often reduces meaningful cultural practices to mere fashion trends or marketable commodities, stripping them of their original significance and context.

🌍 What is a Geographical Indication (GI)?

A Geographical Indication (GI) is a type of intellectual property that shows a product comes from a specific place—like a country, region, or town—and has special qualities, reputation, or features because of that location.

For example, famous GI-tagged products in India include:

• Darjeeling Tea (West Bengal)

• Pashmina Shawls (Jammu & Kashmir)

• Madhubani Paintings (Bihar)

• Kancheepuram Silk (Tamil Nadu)

• Chanderi Sarees (Madhya Pradesh)

Currently, India has over 650 registered GI products.

Why Are GIs Important?

• Help local artisans, farmers, and communities

• Boost exports and rural development

• Preserve traditional knowledge and heritage

• Build consumer trust in the product’s authenticity

🏛️ Legal Protection of GIs

• GIs are collective rights, not owned by any one company.

• They are protected by laws to stop misuse or fake versions.

• GIs are legally backed by international rules like the TRIPS Agreement (1995).

• In India, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 governs GIs and came into effect in 2003.

🥿 Can the makers of Kolhapuri chappals claim GI tag violation against Prada?

Not quite, say experts.

According to legal expers, a GI (Geographical Indication) infringement case may not hold up strongly in this situation.

“The affected party can file a case, but it would likely be limited to seeking acknowledgment or credit, not monetary compensation,”

Since Prada did not explicitly use the term ‘Kolhapuri’ or claim to follow its traditional methods, it can legally argue that no violation occurred.

🧵 Why is protecting traditional crafts so difficult?

Protecting traditional crafts under current Intellectual Property (IP) laws is a major challenge, primarily because:

• IP laws are made for individual innovation, not community knowledge.

• Traditional crafts are often collective, ancient, and orally transmitted, making them hard to document.

• Most IP systems require a known creator and novelty, while traditional crafts are already in the public domain.

• IP protections (except trademarks) have limited durations, whereas traditional heritage needs ongoing protection.

“These crafts fail the ‘novelty’ test and lack formal records, which makes them incompatible with modern IP laws,”

🛡️ So how can we protect against cultural misappropriation?

While the GI tag helps to some extent, more targeted legal tools are needed.

• Some countries are working on new laws to protect traditional knowledge and cultural expressions.

• Communities should document and register their crafts at local or national levels to assert moral and economic rights.

• Ethical and Fair-Trade labels can raise consumer awareness and support fair pay for artisans.

International bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) are also working on a global legal framework to protect traditional knowledge and cultural heritage.