It is a shame that the whole Grihalakshmi breastfeeding scandal went by and there was no reference to the Chennar Revolt.
What is ironic is that in the 19th century--at least in the hindu communities--it was perfectly normal for a woman to bear her breast in public even when not breastfeeding. It was the influx of Victorian prudishness--a western ideal-- that changed the status quo that had presumably been in place for many millenia. The historical narrative that currently prevails sees the whole upper cloth revolt as a case of an oppressive upper caste establishment using their power to objectives women for sexual gratification. The males of the upper castes wanted the lower castes to be unclothed so that they could be ogled at freely. The women through the Revolt gained the right not to be objectified. This narrative is supported by both the Marxist and the Christian missionaries for obvious reasons. But the narrative is flawed. Upper clothing was optional for women of the upper caste as well. Although they enjoyed the prevail privilege of covering their breast, they didn't necessarily choose to do so. They had to freedom to go bare. And they frequently choose to do just that. You can Google for evidence.
The upper caste men had no dearth of bare breast to ogle at that they needed to forcefully uncloth lower caste women for that pleasure. In fact, as it is traditional for men to take off their shirts in temple nowadays, in the past women (even of the upper caste) were required to take off any upper cloths.
Going by the prevailing views of male sexuality, One has to imagine the mentality of men of the Era with regards to nudity. Today we have talks of how leggings and watermelons are enticing men to turn predators. One would think that all the breast free to view would have made them all voracious perverts. Was great grandpa a pervert. Or maybe he was so chaste that he didn't look strange women in the breast. We will never know.
In 1850 did the malayalee gain a right or tacitly loose one.
