Rs 8.3 lakh Fendi bag resembling 'Rs 500' Indian market designs: Why the luxury brand did not 'credit' Indian artisans, ask Harsh Goenka, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw

Italian luxury fashion house Fendi has landed in an online controversy over a heavily embellished handbag that social media users say looks strikingly similar to the colourful mirror-and-bead bags commonly seen in Indian markets during Navratri and other festive occasions. The bag, priced at around ₹8.3 lakh, has 39,500 beads and 475 mirrors and takes more than 138 hours of craftsmanship, according to Fendi’s product description. But the price and design are not the only things being discussed. Questions over the recognition of Indian craftsmanship have now been raised by business leaders Harsh Goenka and Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw.

The handbag has been given the ‘Navratri bag’ name by some social media users. Fendi itself does not appear to use that name for the product.

Fendi’s ₹8.3 lakh bag has thousands of beads and mirrors

The product is listed on Fendi’s website as the “Baguette 26424: Multicolour Re Edition bag with embroidery and mirrors.”


Fendi describes it as being entirely embroidered by hand. The design combines different colours, textures, beads and mirrors, with the product description stating that it contains 39,500 beads and 475 mirrors.

The brand says the work requires more than 138 hours of craftsmanship.

It is the bright colours and extensive use of small mirrors and embellishments that caught the attention of Indian social media users. Many compared it with the kind of colourful bags and accessories sold in Indian markets, particularly around Navratri.

The product is listed as being made in Italy on Fendi’s website, which became another point of discussion online.

Harsh Goenka compares Fendi bag with ₹500 Indian designs

RPG Group chairman Harsh Goenka was among those who questioned the luxury brand's approach.

Sharing a picture of the Fendi handbag on X, Goenka compared its price with similar-looking bags sold in Gujarat and referred to the controversy involving Prada and Kolhapuri chappals.

He wrote, “After the Prada Kolhapuri chappal scandal, here comes the Fendi "Navratri" bag. Charging ₹8.3 Lakhs for a design that looks exactly like a ₹500 bag available in the streets of Gujarat. And zero credit to Indian artisans. When will luxury brands stop colonising our crafts?”

Goenka's post brought the issue to a wider audience, with people debating whether traditional Indian designs are being commercially repackaged by luxury brands without enough recognition for the communities that have preserved those craft traditions.

His reference to Prada is about the backlash that the fashion house faced over footwear which closely resembled traditional Kolhapuri chappals. The criticism at the time focused partly on the lack of initial cultural and historical context around the Indian footwear tradition. Prada later added that context to its official website.

Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw calls it ‘cultural appropriation’

Biocon founder Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw also joined the discussion after reacting to Goenka's post.

She described the Fendi controversy as a case of cultural appropriation and said traditional Indian craftsmanship should not simply be presented as luxury without recognition of the artisans who have maintained those techniques.

Mazumdar-Shaw wrote, “This is a case of cultural appropriation & not in good taste. Repackaging India’s traditional craft as luxury, without credit to the artisans who created and preserved it, undermines our authentic talent and heritage.”

She followed it with another comment: “Indian craftsmanship deserves recognition, not imitation.”

Social media divided over the Fendi controversy

The reaction online has not been completely one-sided. Some users criticised Fendi over the price and alleged lack of recognition, while others questioned whether the design can be claimed exclusively as Indian.

One person wrote, “Nobody will give more than 500 rupees to this bag, if the Fendi logo is not there.”

Another said, “They are showing us the upside. We need to grab this opportunity and start selling similar products next to them.”

A third user pointed to the price difference, writing, “Correct but pricing is way beyond average Indian bag of the same design.”

Another comment took a more measured position: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; however I fully support the fact that credit must be given where it’s due. And in this case the financial credit is due.”

There were also users who questioned whether the discussion should focus on credit to a particular artisan or simply on recognition of Indian craftsmanship and the country where such traditions have existed.

One person wrote, “Then every food/textiles and other handicraft items exported from India should also be given credit to farmers, artisans and exporter. Credit is given to India not to a special artisan.”

Debate turns towards India’s own fashion industry

The Fendi controversy has also led some users to question India's role in the global luxury market.

One commenter argued that India has not done enough to turn its traditional designs and crafts into internationally recognised brands, writing, “That’s our problem that we failed to create global brands with our designs, products et. al. You can’t stop anyone copying and they hv created brand equity!!”

Another user said traditional designs need stronger legal protection if creators want to prevent commercial imitation, stating, “Why is it that we expect the capitalists to accommodate cultural emotions? They are capitalists for a reason. The craft has to be patented. Thats how the capitalists do it and then sue in billions whoever copies.”

The primary focus of this debate is a familiar problem in the fashion world: the difference between taking inspiration from a traditional craft and giving meaningful recognition to the culture and people associated with it.