When a Jhumka Walks a Paris Runway Without Its Story

A few weeks ago, we wrote about what happens when fashion borrows without asking. We talked about Zara and the Mixtec community, Prada and the Kolhapuri chappal, Isabel Marant and the Mixe blouse. 

Each time, the same story: a global brand takes something that belongs to a specific people, removes its name and its context, and sells it to the world at a price the original makers could never charge.

We said then that this is not a hypothetical. It is the everyday reality of artisans whose work travels without them.

And now there is a new example worth looking at closely. This time, it is jhumkas. And this time, the word they used was "vintage."

What Happened at Paris Fashion Week

Jhumkas are not difficult to recognise. The dome shape, the delicate bell, the way they move. They have been part of Indian jewellery tradition for centuries, worn at weddings, at festivals, and in everyday life across the country. 

At Ralph Lauren's Fall 2026 runway show in Paris, models wore exactly that. A pair of jhumkas, without anyone calling them that.

Ralph Lauren's show notes described them as "vintage accessories." 

❌ No mention of India

❌ No mention of jhumkas

❌ No mention of the craft tradition or the people who carry it forward

As Harper's Bazaar India reported, the South Asian community noticed immediately and the reaction was swift. Because this is not the first time, and everyone knew it.

One Word That Does a Lot of Damage

In our earlier piece, we explained how cultural appropriation works through language as much as through design. Words like "inspired," "heritage," and "vintage" are chosen carefully in fashion because they suggest character and depth while removing the actual story behind an object.

Vintage is particularly effective at this. It implies age and charm. It says: this object has history. But it does not say whose history. It strips the earring of its geography, its community, and its meaning. And once that is gone, the question of origin stops feeling relevant to the buyer.

Whether or not that is intentional, the effect is the same. The origin disappears, and with it, the conversation that should have followed.

The Same Pattern, a Different Craft

In the Prada case we covered earlier, the Kolhapuri chappal was described simply as a "leather flat sandal." In the Zara case, a handcrafted huipil became a "blue embroidered midi dress." Now a jhumka becomes a "vintage accessory." The language changes but the mechanism is identical.

A design is absorbed into a new context, the original reference is left out, and it reaches the world without the story attached to it. Do you see a pattern?

When aesthetics travel without the people behind them, something important gets lost in transit.

There Are Real People Behind the Jhumka

Jhumkas are made by craftspeople, often working in specific regional clusters across India, using techniques passed down through generations. 

The distinct shapes, the metalwork, the finishing, none of this is accidental. It carries the knowledge of the people who developed it and the communities that kept it alive. These are the most enduring kind of accessories, precisely because they are rooted in something real.

When a global fashion house presents jhumkas on a Paris runway without naming them, it disconnects the object from the people who created it. The brand gains from the cultural richness the craft brings. The artisan does not. 

Why Jhumkas Are Not Just Earrings

We made this point in our cultural appropriation piece, and it bears repeating. Some objects carry meaning that goes beyond how they look.

Jewellery in India is personal. It is emotional. Jhumkas are worn at weddings and festivals and in everyday moments. They are tied to memory and identity in a way that sits outside trend cycles entirely. 

When such an object is lifted from its context and presented as a generic vintage accessory on a global stage, the people it belongs to feel it. Not as an abstract cultural offence, but as something more immediate. A recognition that the world is happy to wear what you made, but not to know your name.

This is why the reaction was not just about fashion language. It was simply about giving credit. Calling something by its real name. That is the bare minimum.

Do Your Bit

1. Calling something "vintage" without stating its origin is not neutral. It is a choice to erase where something comes from and who made it.
2. This is not an isolated incident. As we covered earlier, Indian craft traditions have repeatedly appeared on global runways without credit. Jhumkas are the latest example in a long and familiar list.
3. The craftspeople behind these traditions are real. They have names, locations, and histories. When their work appears without acknowledgement, they lose something that money cannot replace.
4. Audiences are no longer passive. The backlash happened in real time because people recognised the jhumkas and were not willing to let the label stand unchallenged.
5. Credit costs nothing. It is the simplest form of respect a brand can offer, and when it is missing, it leaves a gap that the community notices.

The jhumka is beautiful because of where it comes from. That is worth SAYING OUT LOUD.

Naming Is Not An Afterthought At TuDuGu 

Every artisan on our platform is credited by name, craft, and community. 

When you find a pair of jhumkas on TuDuGu, you also find the person who made them, where they are from, and the tradition they are working within. That is not a branding exercise. It is what respect actually looks like in practice.

Indian craft traditions are not a mood or an aesthetic direction for a season. They are a living ecosystem built over centuries by people who deserve to be seen. They deserve to be seen in full, not borrowed in part.