[lemonnuggets]

The article does go on to address this claim that lower-caste women had to keep their breasts bare in front of men of higher castes. It claims that this cloth used to cover the upper body was a sign of status and not a gendered practice. Men (and women) of a lower caste, would also have to take of their upper cloth when in the presence of a woman (or man) of a higher caste. The authors point throughout the article is that the right lens through which the significance of the "cloth" is to be viewed is in terms of caste and status; not that of gender. Don't know enough about the details here to compare the references he used against yours but thought it'd be helpful to share what comes after those first few lines.

[Guestmodinfo]

What you say is true but don't let the article divorce the sexual connotations from this practice so easily just because the article begs you to. It is centuries old dirty laundry coming to light so the article is an eyewash.

Which is easier to say, "let your women be bare in front of us men" or to say, "let all of you bare yourselves before a higher person."

I'm an Indian I understand that the "higher" castes are less in number than the "lower ones" so lots of social and cultural stratagem are used to maintain the hierarchy

[lemonnuggets]

I do think the sexual connotations that come with exposing a woman's bare chest do arise from cultures and societies where that isn't as common. Most cultures present in hot/humid weather across the world do have at least some history of natural toplessness. Even in parts of northern India till the Muslim Conquest this wasn't uncommon. References to this cultural norm can be found in neighbouring states of Kerala alongside most places with similar weather like Thailand, Indonesia and tribes across Africa. The common thread between these cultures as well is that there's "outsiders" coming in with their own "male gaze" and norms change accordingly. A culture where it's normal for men to bare their chests doesn't remove any sexuality of a bare male chest while it also being normal enough to see in passing. Don't see why it's not natural for the same to apply to women when we remove ourselves and our "modern" sensibilities. The author does mention how women refused to cover up claiming "they weren't prostitutes and had nothing to hide". The standards for what's proper and what's scandalous change with time and imposing our westernized views on a culture with its own norms, taboos and social grammer isn't helpful imo. The discussion isolating Kerala here just does seem to come down to how late this practice seems to have gone on for and therefore how well documented it and the transition from it is. Not denying the role that caste played here obviously but do think I agree with the perspective here that this applied for men and women across the board and was not an attempt by the higher caste men to sneakily sexually subjugate lower caste women. Pictures and paintings of Nair princesses and queens (a famously matrilineal society) just do not make sense when looking at it from our cultural lens. I'm a keralite myself who's not very well versed in history other than the occasional article here and there so take that as you will to judge my biases and credibility (can confirm the weather really is disgustingly hot and maybe that's why I can see why it'd be more natural to have women and men bare their chest than have the multiple layers that come with something like a sari).