📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Bollywood Hungama
International
Sehore activist says 1917 Rs 35,000 loan to Britain, UK debt office finds no record
✍️ Amar Ujala · Madhya Pradesh
🗓 18 Oct 2026, 08:31 PM
👁 17
Vinay Ruthia of Sehore alleges that his forefather, Seth Jumma Lal Ruthia, lent the British government Rs 35,000 in 1917. The UK Debt Management Office says no documentation exists to confirm the liability.
Sehore, Madhya Pradesh – Local activist Vinay Ruthia has publicly asserted that his ancestor, the early‑20th‑century merchant Seth Jumma Lal Ruthia, extended a loan of Rs 35,000 to the British colonial administration in 1917. The amount, equivalent to several million rupees today, was reportedly given to support wartime expenditures during World War I.
Ruthia’s claim, lodged through a petition to the British authorities, seeks formal acknowledgment of the debt and, if possible, repayment or compensation. He argues that the loan was a documented transaction recorded in family ledgers, and that the British government never settled the amount before Indian independence.
The UK Debt Management Office, the department responsible for historic sovereign debt, responded that no archival evidence of such a loan exists in its records. The office declined to accept liability, stating that without verifiable documentation it cannot confirm any outstanding obligation.
Legal experts note that proving a century‑old private loan against a former colonial power is exceptionally challenging, especially when official archives lack corroborating entries. Ruthia’s appeal has drawn attention from local media and community groups, who see it as a symbolic effort to address historical financial injustices.
The matter remains unresolved, with Ruthia indicating he may explore further diplomatic channels or legal avenues should new evidence emerge.
Ruthia’s claim, lodged through a petition to the British authorities, seeks formal acknowledgment of the debt and, if possible, repayment or compensation. He argues that the loan was a documented transaction recorded in family ledgers, and that the British government never settled the amount before Indian independence.
The UK Debt Management Office, the department responsible for historic sovereign debt, responded that no archival evidence of such a loan exists in its records. The office declined to accept liability, stating that without verifiable documentation it cannot confirm any outstanding obligation.
Legal experts note that proving a century‑old private loan against a former colonial power is exceptionally challenging, especially when official archives lack corroborating entries. Ruthia’s appeal has drawn attention from local media and community groups, who see it as a symbolic effort to address historical financial injustices.
The matter remains unresolved, with Ruthia indicating he may explore further diplomatic channels or legal avenues should new evidence emerge.