Cultural appropriation isn’t just colonial, it’s casteist

When Italian luxury house Prada recently unveiled its version of the Kolhapuri chappal, Indian social media was quick to react.

- 

Accusations of cultural appropriation and erasure followed, accompanied by demands for proper attribution and a wider call to “decolonise fashion”. But what if the cultural erasure didn’t start with Prada, or with the West? What if the deeper, older story is not just about colonial appropriation, but about caste-based appropriation from within? Beneath the Indian diaspora’s outrage lies a deeper, more uncomfortable truth: the issue isn’t just about what is being borrowed, but who gets to borrow and who doesn't. The Kolhapuri controversy exposes not only colonial legacies but also the casteist dynamics embedded within India’s cultural economy.Originating in Maharashtra’s Kolhapur region and its neighbouring districts, the Kolhapuri chappal is known for its durability and distinct structure. What is less commonly discussed is who makes them. Historical accounts of Kolhapuri craftsmanship often mention specific sub-castes such as the Chamar, Dhor, and Matang: scheduled caste communities historically assigned the task of leatherwork, a practice stigmatised due to its contact with animal hides. These artisans, often from marginalised backgrounds, tan, dye, and stitch the leather by hand, creating a product celebrated for its durability and aesthetic. Yet, mainstream narratives often generalise Kolhapuris as a “Maharashtrian” or “Indian” craft, erasing the caste-specific labour behind them.