Stolen, Styled, and Stripped of Its Name: The World Loves Indian Aesthetics, Just Not India

If you plan to watch Paris Fashion Week this year, I’d advise against it. Everything on the runway exists here, on our Indian streets—better, more authentic, and affordable. From Prada’s “rebranded” Kolhapuri Sandals to the so-called “Scandinavian Scarf,” merely a shiny PR version of the Indian Duppatta, nothing is unfamiliar; it’s just been relocated. Globally, especially among luxury fashion houses, history is preserved and marketed—except when it comes to India. Suddenly, amnesia strikes, and while the designs travel, Indian credit does not.

This is not an isolated case. When Ralph Lauren accessorizes models with Jhumkas, calling them “authentic vintage,” they know what they’re omitting, and so do we. Louis Vuitton turns auto-rickshaws into handbags, Gucci charges €3,500 for a Kurta—nothing new is created; it’s all repackaged. The package may carry a designer logo and social credit, but it’s still just packaging. Even craftsmanship, like Lucknowi Mukaish embroidery, crosses borders but loses its Indian origin and the recognition for its craftsmen. Indian fashion isn’t missing globally; it’s repeatedly edited out.

What makes it impressively outrageous is probably the markup. A pair of Kolhapuris, in India, costs somewhere between ₹800-1500; that entirely same pair on the runway appears with a price tag of $1000, or to make it clear, 1.2 Lakhs. Kolhapuris become a design moment, just as a Kurta becomes a “statement linen piece”. The mundane and natural everyday design of India is picked as a template and recast as a rarity, the moment it is distanced from its source of origin. But big brands are certainly not fools, because when something can be renamed, repackaged and sold back at ten times the price, well, they are way better at calculating profit than they are at crediting.

But in the cold world of business, one I do not care to venture, I would still acknowledge this phenomenon as a business strategy, that was, until it discredited our culture. When a brand like Parfois sells “bell anklets”, which are the carbon copy of Ghungroos, it’s more than just a reference or inspiration; it may unknowingly target the sentiments of people. Ghungroo is not just a decorative add-on; it carries cultural and traditional weight built from discipline and devotion, and is absolutely an article that is earned, not accessorised. To see a seasoned brand, strip them of cultural context and sell them for novelty seems less inspired and more indifferent. Perhaps a lesson to be advertised to all would be: Just because it can be sold, does not mean it should.

At some point, the question naturally shifts from what is being borrowed to where. Because fashion borrows all the time, it borrows from Japan, Africa, and even Scandinavia, and manages to credit these countries just fine. The references are cited, and their histories are awarded with the much-deserved respect. It is only when it’s India that the system develops a blind spot. And this is exactly why this pattern is hard to dismiss, and hence won’t be. The accreditation of almost all countries but India displays that the industry indeed has a memory and does not forget; it is just that when it comes to India, they choose to forget. And targeted amnesia like that, well, it will not survive when a country with a population of 1.4 billion awaits their deserved recognition.

But as it always is, I am not a pessimist, and neither is this situation, not entirely. Prada, after its launch of the Kolhapuri slippers in 2025, received major backlash from Indians. The response was swift, acknowledgement followed by a commendable three-year collaboration with Indian artisans to develop Made in India products. Elsewhere, the shift is more visible; Indian designers and their work have been applauded on red carpets more and more in the last year, as displayed in the recent Academy Awards, where celebrities sauntered in custom Gaurav Gupta and other famous Indian labels, making it impossible to miss. So as it is, there is progress; it’s slow, maybe a crack in the façade, but it is progress nevertheless.

This does make this whole industry’s creative stance look rather thin. Because if the most reputable and powerful fashion houses in the world continue to keep circling around Indians and their aesthetics, it naturally pushes me to ask: What exactly takes place in their studio? These are designers, the best of the best, with unlimited resources, influence, power and a whole team dedicated to innovation. And yet somehow their best bet is identical, not elevated or even repurposed, plain and simple resemblance to Indian accessories and fashion. To be entirely truthful, it does not inspire my confidence in the current fashion world or the ones leading it, as I am sure, esteemed designers and companies surely understand the thin line that exists between inspiration and replication, and yet time and again, they willingly cross it.

And as I wind down, I believe in conclusion, maybe this is where we are headed. Because if Indian Aesthetic is what the world continues to wear, which it clearly does, why should its origin remain invisible? For a long time, India was a source material, rich and abundant for inspirations and aesthetics, but if the global fashion keeps circling and running back to India in search of “newness” every season, well the centre of gravity has already started to shift, and if they really do need to borrow our aesthetics, well a round of credits has been overdue for far too long, and now India no longer exists to be borrowed from silently.

​