INDIA-L Archives

From: Glen Wilson< >
Subject: Re: Lakhs
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 08:32:49 GMT

On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:56:30 EDT, you wrote:

>In a message dated 98-07-01 09:22:37 EDT, writes:
>
><< have been also wonderings what were Lakhs ? >>
>A lakh has 5 zeroes i.e. 100,000. A crore has 7 zeroes i.e. 10,000,000
> Therefore a crore is one hundred lakhs i.e. 100, 00,000
>These numbers are still used in India today and come from the sanskrit--
>laksha.
>A lakh of rupees was worth 10,000 pounds but by 1911 was worth only 6666
>pounds.
>
>(Ency Brit 1911) and Webster,s.
This is correct but it makes more sense if it is written the same way
that the Indians do:-
1,0001 thousand
1,00,0001 lakh
1,00,00,0001 crore
As mentioned these terms are still in common use particularly when
talking about money. In the Times of India you will often see "One
crore" or "One lakh" but the word "rupees" is often omitted.

>I don`t have the Daily Telegraph today so I can`t look up the current
>exchange rate, but as with all recent money changing it probably doesn`t
>have any relation to purchasing power on the ground. The Mars Bar rule is
>the best indicator of western inflation and purchasing power and I`m fairly
>sure that I read recently some thing about the Pound/Kilo of Rice being a
>similar indicator. Any Economists out there??

You have to be careful in Asian countries using Rice as a measuring
stick as the price of rice is usually kept artificially low,
subsidised by the governments, non essentials like a can of Coke and
the like are a better indicator of purchasing power, not that these
existed 100 years ago in India of course.
----------------------------- _--_/\ --------------------
/ |_\<- Rockhampton
AUSTRALIA \_.--\_/ Central Queensland
---------------------------------- v --------------------
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/ggw/index.htm

This thread:

• Lakhs by <>

  • Re: Lakhs by Glen Wilson< >