Why is Prada caught in a sandal scandal in India?
New Delhi, India — When models sashayed down the ramp at Milan Fashion Week last week, Harish Kurade looked at them on his smartphone in awe, sitting in his village in southern Maharashtra state, more than 7,000km (4,350 miles) away.
Models were showcasing a new line of open-toe leather sandals, designed by Prada, the iconic luxury fashion house. However, in India, the visuals raised a furore among artisans and politicians after the Italian giant failed to credit the ancient Maharashtra roots of its latest design.
“They [Prada] stole and replicated our crafty work, but we are really happy,” said Kurade in a chirpy tone. “Today, the world’s eyes are on our Kolhapuri ‘chappals’ [Hindi for sandals].” Kolhapur is a city in Maharashtra after which the sandals are named.
After facing backlash, Prada acknowledged that its new sandal designs “are inspired by traditional Indian handcrafted footwear, with a centuries-old heritage”, in a letter to the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce.
While Kurade is chuffed about the centuries-old sandal-making craft from his village potentially gaining global exposure, other artisans, politicians and activists are wary of cultural appropriation and financial exploitation by Prada.
So, what is the controversy about? And what are artisans in Kolhapur saying about Prada? Can it change anything for the workers behind the original sandals?
What did Prada step into?
Prada showcased the classic T-strapped leather flats at the Spring/Summer 2026 menswear collection at Milan Fashion Week.
In its show notes, the Italian brand described the new range of footwear only as “leather sandals”. The notes made no mention of any Indian connection, despite its uncanny resemblance to Kolhapuri sandals, which are wildly popular across India and often worn on special occasions, such as weddings and festivals, along with traditional Indian clothing.
Outraged, a delegation of Kolhapuri sandals manufacturers met Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Thursday last week to register their protest.
Showing his support for the delegation is Dhananjay Mahadik, a member of parliament from the state’s Kolhapur district, belonging to the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Mahadik told reporters that the sandal makers and their supporters are in the process of filing a lawsuit in the Bombay High Court against Prada.
Mahadik also wrote to Fadnavis, drawing “urgent attention to a serious infringement on Maharashtra’s cultural identity and artisan rights”, and called on him to “protect the cultural heritage of Maharashtra”.
In his letter, he noted that the sandals are reportedly priced at approximately $1,400 a pair. By contrast, the authentic Kolhapuri sandals can be found in local markets for about $12.
How has Prada responded?
The Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) also wrote to Patrizio Bertelli, the chairperson of Prada’s Board of Directors, about the concerns of sandal makers.
Two days later, the company responded, acknowledging that the design was inspired by the centuries-old Indian sandals. “We deeply recognise the cultural significance of such Indian craftsmanship. Please note that, for now, the entire collection is currently at an early stage of design development, and none of the pieces are confirmed to be produced or commercialised,” Prada said.
The company added that it remains “committed to responsible design practices, fostering cultural engagement, and opening a dialogue for a meaningful exchange with local Indian artisan communities, as we have done in the past in other collections to ensure the rightful recognition of their craft.
“Prada strives to pay homage and recognise the value of such specialised craftspeople that represent an unrivalled standard of excellence and heritage.”
Srihita Vanguri, a fashion entrepreneur from the city of Hyderabad, said that Prada’s actions were “disappointing but not surprising”.
“Luxury brands have a long history of borrowing design elements from traditional crafts without giving due credit – until there’s a backlash,” she told Al Jazeera. “This is cultural appropriation if it stops at inspiration without attribution or benefit-sharing.”
Kolhapuris, which the sandals are also known as, are not just a design, she insisted. They carry the legacy of centuries of craft communities in Maharashtra and the neighbouring state of Karnataka. “Ignoring that context erases real people and livelihoods,” she added.
What about artisans of Kolhapur?
Kolhapur, nestled in southwestern Maharashtra, is a city steeped in royal heritage, spiritual significance and artisanal pride. Beyond its crafts, Kolhapur is also home to several revered Hindu temples and a rich culinary legacy – its food is spicy.
Its famed sandals date back to the 12th century, with more than 20,000 local families still involved in this craft.
The family of Kurade, who was happy about Prada showcasing the sandals, lives on the outskirts of Kolhapur, and has been in this business for more than 100 years.
But he said the business has taken a beating in recent years. “In India, people don’t really understand this craft or want to put money in this any more. If an international brand comes, steals it and showcases it on global platforms, maybe that is good for us,” he told Al Jazeera.
He said that craftsmen like those in his family “still stand where they were years ago”.
“We have the craft and the capacity to move ahead, but the government has not supported us,” the 40-year-old said.
Rather, Kurade said, politics has made things worse.
Since 2014, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu majoritarian government came to power in New Delhi, cows have transformed from just symbols of reverence into a flashpoint for religious identity and social conflict. Cow protection, once largely cultural, has become violent, with vigilantes hunting down Dalits and Muslims, the communities that mostly transport cows and buffaloes to trading markets where they are bought for slaughter.
That has disrupted a reliable supply of cow and buffalo hides, which are then tanned with vegetables to make Kolhapuri chappals.
“The original hide we use for quality is restricted in several states because of politics around cows,” said Kurade. “The supply has touched new lows due to politics on cows – and we have been suffering because it has become really expensive for us to keep doing it with the same quality.”
Craftsmen like Kurade believe that if they can make the sandals cheaper and more accessible, “people will wear this because it is what people have loved for centuries”.
Still, Kurade said, while Prada can try and imitate Kolhapuri aesthetics, it cannot replicate the intricate hand-woven design patterns, mastered by the Dalit community in southern Maharashtra and some parts of bordering Karnataka. Dalits are traditionally the most marginalised segment of India’s complex caste hierarchy.
“The authentic design is something which is rare and unique,” he said. “Even shops in Kolhapur city may not have them.”
The real designs, Kurade said, are still made in villages by using centuries-old craft.
But because of the challenge of sourcing quality hides, and faced with an increasingly digital marketplace that artisans are unfamiliar with, Dalit sandal makers need help, he said.
“People who know markets, who can sell it ahead, are the ones cashing in on this. Poor villagers like us cannot run a website; we do not have the marketing knowledge,” he said.
“The government should look into this, to bridge this gap – it is their duty to look into this. The benefits never reached the real makers from the Dalit groups.”
Has it happened before?
Since 2019, after sustained advocacy by artisan groups, India has protected Kolhapuri sandals under its Geographical Indications of Goods Act (1999), preventing commercial use of the term “Kolhapuri Chappal” by unauthorised producers. But this protection is limited within national borders.
Prada has previously faced significant criticism over alleged cultural appropriation, most notably in 2018 when it released the “Pradamalia” collection – keychains and figurines that resembled racist caricatures with exaggerated red lips, drawing immediate comparisons with blackface imagery. After the backlash, Prada pulled the products from stores and issued a public apology.
Prada has also been criticised for store displays that have evoked racial stereotypes, as well as for its use of animal-based luxury materials like ostrich and exotic leathers, which have drawn criticism from environmental and labour rights groups.
But Prada is not alone.
In 2019, Christian Dior drew criticism for incorporating elements inspired by the traditional attire of Mexican horsewomen in its Cruise collection, without formal acknowledgement or collaboration.
In 2015, French designer Isabel Marant came under fire in Mexico for marketing a blouse that closely mirrored the traditional embroidery patterns of the Mixe community in Oaxaca, sparking accusations of cultural appropriation.
Rather than apologise, Vanguri, the fashion entrepreneur, said that the “real respect would be Prada co-creating a capsule collection with Kolhapuri artisan clusters – giving them fair design credit, profit share, and global visibility”.
“Structurally, they could commit to long-term partnerships with craft cooperatives or even fund capacity-building and design innovation for these communities,” she said.
Source: Apps Support
US accuses Harvard of anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, staff
US President Donald Trump’s administration has accused Harvard University of violating the civil rights of its Jewish and Israeli students and threatened to cut off all federal funding to the institution.
The announcement on Monday is the latest action by the Trump administration against the United States’s oldest university after the institution rejected earlier demands to alter its operations.
In a letter sent to Harvard president Alan Garber, a federal task force said its investigation has concluded that “Harvard has been in some cases deliberately indifferent, and in others has been a willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff”.
The letter went on to say that the majority of Jewish students at Harvard felt they suffered discrimination on campus, while a quarter felt physically unsafe.
It also threatened further funding acts if Harvard did not change course.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” it said, without elaborating what the reforms needed were.
In a statement, Harvard pushed back against the allegations.
The university said that it had taken “substantive, proactive steps” to combat anti-Semitism on campus, and had made “significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias”.
“We are not alone in confronting this challenge and recognise that this work is ongoing,” it said, adding that it remains “committed to ensuring members of our Jewish and Israeli community are embraced, respected, and can thrive at Harvard”.
At a White House briefing later, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said discussions between the Trump administration and Harvard were taking place “behind closed doors”, but offered no further details.
Protests against Israel’s war on Gaza
US universities have faced controversy over alleged anti-Semitism on their campuses since the eruption last year of nationwide student protests against Israel’s war on Gaza.
Trump has called such protests “illegal” and accused participants of anti-Semitism. But protest leaders – who include Jewish students – have described their actions as a peaceful response to Israel’s actions, which have elicited concerns about human rights abuses, including genocide.
The Trump administration has frozen some $2.5bn in federal grant money to Harvard, moved to block it from enrolling international students and threatened to remove its tax-exempt status.
It has demanded that Harvard end all affirmative action in faculty hiring and student admissions and disband student groups that promote what it calls criminal activity and harassment.
It also called for changes to the admissions process “to prevent admitting international students hostile to the American values”, including “students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism”.
Harvard has rejected those demands, and sued the administration, calling its actions “retaliatory” and “unlawful”.
The Trump administration has also gone after top colleges, including Columbia, Cornell and Northwestern.
In early March, Columbia – whose protest camps were copied by students at colleges all over the country – had $400m in federal funding cut from its budget.
The school later agreed to a list of demands from the Trump administration. These included changing its disciplinary rules and reviewing its Middle East studies programme.
Separately, University of Virginia president James Ryan said last week he chose to step down rather than fight the US government as the Trump administration investigated the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Around the same time, the Trump administration also launched a probe into hiring practices at the University of California system – which enrols nearly 300,000 students – to determine whether they violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
The universities have, meanwhile, said that the Trump administration’s actions threaten academic freedom and free speech, as well as critical scientific research.
Source: Al Jazeera
US-backed Gaza aid fund may be “complicit” in war crimes
Human rights lawyer Geoffrey Nice says the acting director of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is a fundamentalist Christian who shares some of Israel’s objectives. Hundreds of unarmed Palestinians have been killed at aid sites led by GHF.
Source: Apps Support
Who wins, who loses if Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ passes?
The United States Senate is debating President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill“, which promises sweeping tax breaks, as Republicans hope to pass it before Friday’s Independence Day holiday.
On Saturday, the Senate voted 51-49 to open debate on the latest 940-page version of the bill, despite two Republican senators joining the Democrats to oppose the motion. Trump’s Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, and Democrats hold 47.
What’s next if the Senate passes the bill?
On May 22, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed an earlier version of the bill in a 215-214 vote.
That bill has been revised by the Senate, and both chambers of Congress must pass the same legislation for it to become law. If the Senate passes its version, then members from both chambers would work to draft compromise legislation that the House and Senate would have to vote on again. Republicans hold 220 seats and Democrats hold 212 in the House.
If the compromise bill is passed, it would advance to Trump, who is expected to sign it into law.
So, who would be some of the winners and losers if the bill – opposed by Democrats and some conservatives – becomes law?
Who would benefit from the bill?
The groups who would benefit include:
High-income households
The bill would extend tax cuts that Trump introduced during his first term. While Trump has pitched this as a gain for the American people, some will benefit more than others.
More than a third of the total cuts would go to households with an annual income of $460,000 or more. About 57 percent of the tax cuts would go to households with a yearly income of $217,000 or more.
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Senate bill would slash taxes on average by about $2,600 per household in 2026. “High-income households would receive much more generous tax benefits”, its analysis said.
Families with children
If the bill does not pass, the child tax credit, currently at $2,000 per child per year, would drop to $1,000 in 2026.
However, if the current version of the Senate bill passes, the child tax credit will permanently increase to $2,200. This is a smaller increase than the $2,500 in the version of the bill that the House approved.
Traditional car manufacturers
Makers of traditional petrol-driven cars could benefit from the bill because the Senate version seeks to end the tax credit for purchases of electric vehicles (EVs), worth up to $7,500, starting on September 30.
This could decrease consumer demand for EVs, levelling the playing field for cars that run on petrol or diesel.
Workers who receive tips
Tips will not be taxed if the bill passes.
Currently, workers – whether waiters or other service providers – are required to report all tips in excess of $20 a month to their employers, and those additional earnings are taxed.
This bill would end that.
Who would lose out because of the bill?
Some of the groups that would not benefit include:
Food stamp recipients
The Senate version of the bill proposes slashing the food stamps programme, called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), by $68.6bn over a decade, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Food stamps help low-income families buy food. In the 2023 fiscal year, 42.1 million people per month benefited from the programme, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
Medicaid beneficiaries
The Senate version of the bill proposes federal funding cuts by $930bn to Medicaid, the largest US programme providing healthcare to low-income people. These are cuts to budget outlays by 2034.
The bill says that starting in 2026, able-bodied adults under the age of 65 will be required to work 80 hours a month to continue to receive Medicaid, with the exception of those who have dependent children.
More than 71 million low-income Americans were enrolled in Medicaid for health insurance as of March.
EV manufacturers
The EV tax credit would end on September 30 if the Senate version of the bill passes. The House version aims to phase out the tax credit by the end of 2025.
Billionaire Elon Musk, who owns the EV manufacturer Tesla, has voiced his opposition to the bill online. “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote on X on June 3.
He doubled down on his criticism before the Senate deliberations on the bill on Saturday.
“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” Musk wrote on X, a platform he owns.
The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!
Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future. https://t.co/TZ9w1g7zHF
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2025
Fiscal conservatives
Some conservatives have criticised the bill, saying it would inflate the country’s enormous debt.
The CBO estimated that the Senate version would raise the national debt by $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034. Under the House version, the CBO estimated a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt over a decade.
The current US national debt stands above $36 trillion and represents 122 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).
Source: Apps Support