In its latest attempt to repackage corporate malpractice as cultural “missteps”, Bloomberg has published a piece that dances around the plain truth: Prada plagiarized India’s indigenous Kolhapuri chappals and got called out for it.
To facilitate this, they make use of yet another brown sepoy – Karishma Vaswani.
Prada shamelessly copied India’s iconic Kolhapuri chappals, retailing for a mere ₹500 ($10), and rebranded them as “luxury leather footwear” at Milan Fashion Week, the outrage was instant and justified. Yet, instead of condemning this blatant plagiarism, Bloomberg’s article by Vaswani reads like a PR spin for Prada, downplaying theft while shifting blame to India’s so-called “digital ferocity.”
She wrote, “The country’s online community is renowned for its digital ferocity — it accused the brand of cultural appropriation, and the furor forced the fashion house into damage control mode. “
A Textbook Case of Plagiarism, But Bloomberg Won’t Call It That
Vaswani carefully avoids labeling Prada’s act as what it is – intellectual property theft. Instead, she writes, “The sandals, described as ‘leather footwear,’ displayed an open-toe braided pattern that was strikingly similar to Kolhapuri sandals.”
“Strikingly similar”? No. It’s a direct rip-off. Kolhapuri chappals have Geographical Indication (GI) status, meaning they are legally recognized as a unique Indian craft. Prada didn’t just “draw inspiration” – they stole a centuries-old design without credit or compensation.
The fact that the writer is Indian (not sure of her passport, at least she has Indian roots) herself makes the soft-pedaling all the more egregious. There is not a single use of the word “plagiarism” in the entire piece. No demand for Prada to pay royalties. No call to protect India’s heritage from high-fashion theft.
Deflecting Blame to “Indian Trolls” Instead of Holding Prada Accountable
Instead of holding Prada responsible, there’s a finger-wag at Indian netizens for being too aggressive. She writes, “The saga underscores how much power the South Asian giant’s digital tribe holds, where online outrage regularly influences public debate – especially when citizens perceive their heritage is under attack.”
This line reeks of condescension. Calling cultural anger “online outrage” and reducing those defending indigenous heritage to a “digital tribe” is how global media trivializes legitimate grievance.
Rather than focusing on Prada’s ethical failure, the article frames the backlash as an overreaction by India’s “nationalistic” online community. She writes, “The nationalistic sentiment whipped up by this controversy boosted sales of the traditional sandals.”
As if Indians are wrong for defending their heritage. The real issue? Prada thought they could get away with it. Only after massive backlash did they issue a half-hearted statement acknowledging “inspiration.” Too little, too late.
Vaswani refers to the outrage as “nationalistic sentiment,” as if calling out cultural appropriation is some kind of overreaction driven by jingoism rather than a demand for fairness and respect. In reality, what happened was simple: an international luxury brand ripped off a traditional Indian design with GI protection, failed to credit its origin, and got caught.
Let’s flip the script. What if an Indian brand launched a line of handbags eerily similar to the Hermès Birkin, priced them at $50, and marketed them in Europe without a word of credit? Would Bloomberg call it a cultural misunderstanding? Would the backlash be termed “digital French nationalism”? Or would it rightly be called out as design theft and IP violation?
Tokenism Over Justice: “Working With Artisans” Isn’t Enough
The author mentions Prada’s damage control move – “In a conciliatory move, it’s now working with traditional artisans to understand the history behind the famed Kolhapuris.”But where is the demand for royalties, fair compensation, or credit for the artisans? This isn’t a “collaboration, it’s exploitation dressed up as goodwill. If Prada truly respected the craft, they would pay the artisans for their designs, officially credit Kolhapuri makers (without Indians having to outrage) as well as invest in sustaining the craft.Instead, Vaswani paints this as a “lesson in cultural sensitivity” rather than corporate theft.
Distracting With Irrelevant Economic Data
In a bizarre pivot, the article suddenly shifts to India’s luxury market growth and middle-class spending cuts. She writes, “While the 100 million wealthiest people are splurging, 400 million of their middle-class counterparts have cut back.”
How does middle-class consumer restraint justify cultural theft? What does this have to do with Prada’s plagiarism?
It’s an intentional deflection, an attempt to frame Indians as either “too poor to matter” or “too aggressive online.”
The Hypocrisy of “Cultural Fluency”
The piece ends with a patronizing warning – “Cultural fluency is no longer a ‘nice to have’—it’s central to business survival.”
But this isn’t about “fluency” – it’s about basic ethics. Prada didn’t “misunderstand” Indian culture; they wantonly ignored it until forced to respond. They took India for granted and Indians are not going to take any more plagiarism lying down.
To read more on how the West plagiarised and appropriated Indian culture, check this.
The real story here isn’t India’s rising “troll army.” It’s how a global luxury brand got caught stealing a traditional design, and instead of serious media introspection, we’re being served PR damage control disguised as analysis.
Shame on Prada for the theft. But more importantly, shame on Bloomberg for justifying it.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
