The UK government has said it has found no evidence that a 109-year-old Indian War Loan, allegedly subscribed by a Bhopal businessman in 1917, was or remains a liability of the British government, according to a report by The Times of India.
The response has left a Madhya Pradesh family seeking clarity over whether the money was ever repaid.
The UK’s Debt Management Office (DMO) conveyed its position in an email dated October 16 to Shreyansh Raniwala, legal counsel for Vivek Ruthiya, 63, of Sehore, the report said.
“We have investigated and can find no evidence that the loan you refer to was or is an obligation of the govt,” the DMO said in the email reply, as quoted by the newspaper.
The DMO has not acknowledged any outstanding liability, leaving the family seeking further answers about the historical transaction.
At the centre of the dispute is a certificate dated June 4, 1917, which the Ruthiya family says has been preserved for more than a century.
The document records a subscription of ₹35,000 by Seth Jumma Lal Ruthiya, a businessman associated with the firm Seth Rama Kishan Jaskaran Ruthiya in the princely state of Bhopal.
It even bears the signature of WS Davis, who was then the Political Agent in Bhopal.
The Indian War Loan was floated during , when the British administration raised money to finance military expenditure.
Such loans allowed governments to borrow from investors, including wealthy individuals and merchants, in return for interest and repayment under the applicable terms.
According to the, the investment carried an annual interest rate of 5.5%. The family maintains that it has not received repayment of the principal or a satisfactory account of the loan’s settlement.
The DMO’s email has prompted questions from social activist Vinay Ruthiya, who has called for greater clarity on the historical records and the alleged loan’s repayment.
He said the family had authenticated the available documents and submitted the material requested through its legal counsel. He argued that the British authorities should clarify whether the subscription appears in their historical financial records and, if so, how the liability was accounted for.
“If the loan was repaid, there should be a record showing when and how it was settled. We submitted the documents they asked for, including the historical certificate,” he said, as quoted by TOI.
Vivek Ruthiya has said he found the documents among papers preserved in his grandfather’s will.
He said that the records included correspondence with the then that supported the family’s account of the transaction.
The family has relied on the certificate and associated papers to pursue its claim more than a century after the investment was made.
Seth Jumma Lal Ruthiya died in 1937, two decades after the alleged subscription, as per TOI.
British rule in India ended in 1947, leaving the family now seeking historical documentation to establish what happened to the investment.
