Of tropics, prisons and bicycles: a conversation with David Arnold

David Arnold who retired this year as the Professor of Asian and Global History at the University of Warwick remains one of the most prolific historians of colonial medicine and modern South Asia. A founding member of the subaltern studies collective, he is considered widely as a pioneer in the histories of colonial medicine, environment, penology, hunger and famines within South Asian studies and beyond. In this interview he recalls his formative inspirations, ideological motivations and reflects critically on his earlier works, explaining various shifts as well as map- ping the possible course of future work. He talks at length about his forthcoming works on everyday technology, food and monsoon Asia. Finally, he shares with us his desire of initiating work on an ambitious project about the twin themes of poison and poverty in South Asian his- tory, beginning with the Bengal famine in the late eighteenth century and ending with the Bhopal gas tragedy of the early 1980s. This conversation provides insights into the ways in which the field of medical history in modern South Asia has been shaped over the past three decades through interactions with broader discussions on agency, resistance, power, everydayness, subal- tern studies, global and spatial histories. It hints further at the newer directions which are being opened up by such persisting intellectual entanglements.

Arnold v. Britton: a ratio and two sets of obiter dicta

Arnold v Britton marks the final stage of the longstanding dispute as to the correct interpretation of a number of 99-year leases of chalets on a leisure park at Oxwich, in the Gower peninsula, near Swansea. The aspect of the case which has attracted most discussion has, understandably, been its main ratio: the proper way to construe a provision of a lease which arguably has an absurd result. This will be considered in this case-note. The judgment of the Supreme Court – particularly the judgment of Lord Neuberger PSC – does, however contain some observations on the possible reform of the law on service charges which are of interest to those engaged in this field. It also contains some obiter comments on ‘letting schemes’ which are – in the view of the present author – highly unorthodox. These three rather disparate issues which are raised by this case will be considered in turn. As they have little in common with each other, they will be considered as separate sections.