Every few months, another global brand “discovers” India. A sandal here. A spice blend there. A silhouette lifted off a Jaipur street. And every time, it’s packaged like an epiphany.
From Kolhapuris to kurtas, from auto-rickshaws to Ayurvedic rituals, Western brands have been borrowing from India for decades. But today, in 2025, they’re not just borrowing, they’re profiting. That too, without credit and without context. And most certainly without compensation.
When Prada Sells Kolhapuris for ₹1 Lakh and Doesn’t Say the Word “India”
Let’s start with the most recent example that lit up every Indian’s Instagram feed: Prada’s Milan Spring/Summer 2025 show, where the luxury house unveiled leather sandals that looked suspiciously like our beloved Kolhapuri chappals. Price tag? Over ₹1 lakh.
Credit to Kolhapur’s master artisans? Zero.
These sandals, worn by men across rural and urban Maharashtra for over 800 years, were paraded on an Italian runway as if they were a novel design.
A centuries-old craft rebranded as “elevated minimalism.”
The outrage that followed wasn’t just noise. It was a demand: for recognition, for economic justice, and for brands to stop treating Indian culture like an open buffet.
Louis Vuitton’s Auto-Rickshaw Bag: When a Symbol of Indian Working-Class Life Becomes a Handbag
Next up: Louis Vuitton’s 2026 Men’s collection. Among its accessories? A handbag shaped like an Indian auto-rickshaw. Again, no explicit acknowledgement of what inspired it.
Let’s sit with that for a second.
An auto-rickshaw is not just a quirky object; it’s a lifeline. It’s how millions of Indians commute, hustle, and survive. To turn that into a $3,000 novelty bag without even a nod to India?
That’s not creativity.
That’s colonial cosplay.
Dior’s $200K Mukaish Jacket, and the Silent Labour Behind It
Then there’s Dior. In one of their most exclusive launches this year, they released an intricately embroidered overcoat priced at $200,000, made using the Mukaish technique from Lucknow.
A dying art form that demands precision, patience, and a wealth of knowledge spanning generations.
It took 12 Indian artisans to bring that jacket to life.
But their names? Their stories? Their communities?
Erased.
This is particularly painful because Dior has previously acknowledged its Indian collaborators. This time, they didn’t. And when brands choose silence where there once was recognition, it speaks volumes.
Gucci, Again: A Case Study in Rebranding What’s Already Ours
Gucci has made cultural ignorance its own aesthetic.
- First, a Sikh-style turban is sold as a fashion accessory.
- Then, a kurta-style “kaftan” was rebranded and priced at several hundred dollars.
- And let’s not forget the time they launched a lehenga-style set, minus the word “lehenga.”
Each time, the pattern is the same: take from India, rename it, and sell it.
Only when the internet explodes in rage do they issue statements - the bare minimum. The damage is already done.
The Core Problem Isn’t Inspiration, Extraction Without Equity
Let’s be clear: culture travels. It evolves. It inspires. That’s natural. But what’s happening here is not cultural exchange. It’s cultural exploitation.
Western brands repeatedly extract value from Indian craftsmanship, spirituality, and everyday life, while Indian creators are shut out of the narrative.
They’re not featured.
They’re not paid their due.
They’re not given platforms.
And as a result, India gets reduced to a prop while the West collects awards.
- We see haldi doodh sold as turmeric latte in wellness cafes.
- Brass lotas rebranded as “vintage vessels” on design blogs.
- Bandhani prints ripped off for runway collections with zero credit.
All the while, the original creators, artisans, farmers, and small businesses are left invisible.
Inspiration Without Inclusion Is Theft. Period.
This isn’t a callout for the sake of it. This is a demand for structural change:
- Acknowledge your sources, not with vague phrases like “inspired by Eastern traditions,” but with real names, real geographies, real communities.
- Pay your collaborators fairly. Exposure doesn’t feed families. Royalties and revenue do.
- Share the spotlight. If Indian culture is good enough to elevate your brand, Indian creators are good enough to be at the table.
India Is Not a Trend. It’s a Civilization.
We are more than your aesthetic. We’re not here to make your runways look exotic. We’re not here to be your cultural seasoning.
When you use our culture without understanding it, without crediting it, without centering the people who live it, you’re not honoring India. You’re erasing it.
So to every brand, designer, and creative director out there: if you’re going to take from us, include us. If you want the color, the rhythm, the symbolism then you better be ready to share the profits and the platform.
Because this time, we’re watching. And we’re speaking up.
India isn’t your moodboard.
It’s a living, breathing, thriving force and we’re done being polite about it.
Some Brands Get It, So Why Can’t the Rest?
Let’s be clear: this isn’t a blanket rejection of cross-cultural inspiration.
India has always inspired. It’s the lack of credit, context, and compensation that hurts. And the truth is, some global brands have shown that it’s entirely possible to celebrate Indian craft with respect.
So when others don’t, it’s not an oversight. It’s a choice.
Dior (When They Do It Right)
Dior’s 2023 Pre-Fall show in Mumbai set the bar. They didn’t just draw inspiration from India, they brought India into the spotlight. The show featured Indian models, Indian artisans, and an entire runway adorned with hand-crafted textiles, embroidery, and floral art created by the Chanakya School of Craft.
For once, the spotlight was shared. The craftswomen who embroidered those garments weren’t hidden backstage, they were named. And celebrated.
That’s what respect looks like.
Contrast that with Dior’s 2025 overcoat embroidered using the Mukaish technique, priced at $200,000, stitched by 12 Indian artisans, and launched with no mention of who made it. Same brand. Two drastically different approaches. One honored the culture. The other used it.
Christian Louboutin x Sabyasachi: A True Collaboration
Christian Louboutin didn’t just “borrow” Indian motifs, he partnered with Sabyasachi Mukherjee, one of India’s most respected designers.
The result?
A collection that felt authentic, luxurious, and collaborative. Indian embroidery wasn’t an afterthought, it was front and center. Sabya’s team was credited, compensated, and celebrated globally.
PS: It was a partnership, not appropriation.
Rahul Mishra x Paris Fashion Week
When Indian designer Rahul Mishra shows in Paris, he brings Indian storytelling with him. Handcrafted, ethically made, and deeply rooted in community. And when international houses collaborate with artists like him, the result is both aspirational and ethical.
This is a reminder: if your design owes something to another culture, it’s not too hard to say so. And it costs you nothing to bring that culture along for the ride.
Priyanka Chopra x Bulgari (Mixed but Worth Noting)
When Bulgari released a mangalsutra-inspired necklace with Priyanka Chopra Jonas as the face, it sparked mixed reactions. Yes, it was commercialized. Yes, it was polarizing. But at least the campaign acknowledged the mangalsutra’s Indian cultural significance and sparked a conversation with Indians, not behind their backs.
That's the bare minimum. And even that’s still better than radio silence.
Credit Is a Choice. Erasure Is Too.
So when Prada skips over Kolhapuri artisans, or Louis Vuitton turns an Indian rickshaw into a $3,000 gimmick, it’s not because they “didn’t know better.”
It’s because they chose not to care enough.
And in an age where acknowledgment is as easy as a caption, the silence is deafening.
Giving credit isn’t difficult. Dior did it. Louboutin did it. So did Hermès, Chanel, and Bulgari, some better than others. Which means the ones who don’t? They’re telling us exactly where we stand in their value chain: invisible but useful.
But let me be clear: this isn’t admiration. It’s appropriation with a PR team.We deserve a seat at the table. PERIOD
